Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Newark Gas Bill [Lords],

Read the third time, and passed, with an Amendment.

Londonderry Port and Harbour Bill [Lords](by Order),

Read a second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

PUNJAB REBEIXION (COURTS-MARTIAL).

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for India if his attention has been called to the result of court-martial prosecutions in connection with the Punjab rebellion; if such prosecutions have been directed against acts of passive resistance against the Rowlatt legislation; and, if not, whether he will give some indication of the class of crime for which prosecutions have been initiated, particularly those in which capital sentence has been passed?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): I have not yet had a full Report, but I understand that capital and other serious offences, such as waging war against the King, murder, robbery with violence, have been tried exclusively by Commissions appointed by the local Government under a Special Ordinance, and consisting of three persons of whom two at least must be judicial officers. Minor offences have been tried and penalties inflicted by courts-martial, the presiding officer being generally a civilian exercising the powers of a first-class magistrate. I understand that acts of "passive resistance" were not in themselves treated as offences by the Punjab authorities.

Sir F. HALL: In view of the untrue statements made in certain portions of the Press and the injury likely to be done in India, will the right hon. Gentleman take care to see that his reply is made known in India?

Mr. MONTAGU: Yes, Sir.

Captain ORMSBY-GORE: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether sentences recently passed by special military Courts in the Punjab included, in addition to sentences of imprisonment, confiscation of the property. of persons so sentenced; whether such sentences necessarily involve the destitution of the innocent wives and children of offenders; and whether he will take steps to revise such sentences forthwith?

Mr. MONTAGU: My hon. and gallant Friend presumably refers to sentences passed by Commissions of three judges appointed under the Special Ordinances. Under the Indian Penal Code the forfeiture of property is part of the penalty provided for the offences of waging war against the King, or attempting to do so, or collecting arms for that purpose. The Courts have therefore no option but to include that in the sentence on persons found guilty. But the Government examines all such cases and remits or reduces this penalty in cases in which it would involve the destitution of the family. The local Government has directed that the orders of forfeiture should not be carried out in cases where the convicted person does not pay Income Tax or does not pay revenue exceeding Rs.30 per annum. In other cases special report is to-be made to the Government.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is India the only part of the British Empire where the sentence of confiscation of property is permitted?

Mr. MONTAGU: I do not know that.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon Gentleman aware of any other part of the British Empire where by sentence a man's property can be taken away?

Mr. MONTAGU: The question on the Paper only deals with India.

Captain ORMSBY-GORE: What is meant by "waging war" against the Government in connection with these riots?

Mr. MONTAGU: The offence of waging war against the Government is an offence
dealt with in the Indian Penal Code, and the facts of the case are judged by Commissioners. I have not yet received a full report of these cases.

ROWLATT LEGISLATION.

Captain ORMSBY-GORE: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has received, and is continuing to receive, representations from various quarters in India regarding the Rowlatt legislation; and whether he can take any steps to allay the uneasiness evidenced by such representations?

Mr. MONTAGU: I have received a large number of communications from India on the subject of the Rowlatt legislation, and I would take this opportunity of making it clear that I have given them my best consideration from the point of view referred to in the last part of the question. I believe that the powers given to the Executive by the Rowlatt legislation are necessary at the present time, and that there are no reasonable grounds for the apprehensions felt in India. The Act itself is valid for a period of three years only, after which the whole position will be considered. If the anarchical and revolutionary actions against which the Act is framed are abandoned, the Act will not be used, and there will be no necessity for its renewal.

ARMY OFFICER PRISONERS (PAY).

Colonel BURN: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he will favourably consider the case of those officers of the Indian Army who were, through no fault of their own, taken prisoners during the War; if he will explain why they were only credited with half their staff pay, while officers of the British Army were better paid while prisoners than they were while serving with their regiments; if he will explain why the moneys given to the officers of the Indian Army by the Red Cross, to compensate for the dearness of provisions, was debited against them; and if compensation will be awarded to those officers who find their uniform has been ruined by white ants in India while they were detained as prisoners of war?

Mr. MONTAGU: With the hon. and gallant Member's permission, I will circulate the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT in order to deal fully with the points he raises.

The following is the reply promised:

I understand my hon. and gallant Friend's question to refer particularly to the Kut garrison. The Government are most anxious to do what they can for these officers, and have invited from them claims for compensation in respect of expenditure incurred during captivity—for instance, on house rent, purchase of furniture, fuel and lighting. Most of the claims have been sent in, and it is hoped that they will all be settled shortly. I may mention that we are giving these officers also free dental treatment, or in the alternative paying bills submitted by their own dentists, in respect of all injury or deterioration to their teeth occurring while they were prisoners of war.

As regards their pay, the present position was fully stated in an answer which I gave in this House on the 6th March last. It was then explained that Indian Army officers prisoners of war received for sixty-one days the full pay of the appointments which they held when captured, and thereafter full pay of rank and half staff pay of their substantive appointments. The Indian Army officer thus received, even after the first sixty-one days, practically the same pay as the British Army officer if a lieutenant, and substantially more if of the rank of captain or over.

So far as I am aware, no money was given by the Red Cross. Presumably the reference is to the Embassy allowances, which were sums issued by the American Embassy, and later the Dutch Embassy, from British, relief funds placed at their disposal by the British Government. It is not the case that these sums have been debited against officers, but officers have merely been asked to deduct the amounts so received from their total claim for compensation under the various headings mentioned above.

As regards the last part of the question, no officer proceeding on field service is entitled to compensation for loss or damage to private property stored in India. I see no reason to discriminate in this respect between officers who were taken prisoner and those who were not.

LONDON SCHOOL OF TROPICAL MEDICINE (TREATMENT OF OFFICERS).

Colonel YATE: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether, considering the importance of the generous arrangement made by him for the treatment of civil and military officers from India suffering
from tropical diseases at the hospital of the London School of Tropical Medicine, he will take steps to have his recent announcement on the subject published in India for the information of all concerned?

Mr. MONTAGU: Yes, Sir.

COTTON CULTIVATION (SUKKUR BARRAGE).

Sir J. D. REES: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India has under consideration the recommendation of the Indian Cotton Commit tee that the Sukkur barrage should be constructed upon the Indus in order to effect the. extension of the. cultivation of long-staple cotton in Sind?

Mr. MONTAGU: I hope to transmit shortly to the Government of India the advice of the "Empire Cotton Growing Committee on the recommendations made by the Indian Committee. The Govern-men of India will then, if they have not already done so, consider the whole Report, including the recommendation relating to the Sukkur barrage.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL (SELECT COMMITTEE).

Colonel YATE: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he will direct the Government of India to request the pre sent Governors of the provinces which submitted an alternative scheme on the 15th January last to nominate representatives, either now in this country or in India, to express their views before the Joint Select Committee on the Government of India Bill?

Mr. MONTAGU: No, Sir.

Colonel YATE: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's statement the other day that he represents the Provincial Governments, may I ask how he can represent those Governments when his opinions are directly opposed to their views?

Mr. MONTAGU: I will take the most scrupulous care that their views are put before the Committee. I understand that the Committee have already decided to hear the evidence of one of those who drew up the alternative scheme.

Colonel YATE: May not the other five also be represented?

Mr. MONTAGU: If five men draw up a scheme I should have thought it sufficient to have one to explain it.

Colonel YATE: Has the right hon. Gentleman nominated only one man to represent his views? How many does he directly nominate?

Mr. MONTAGU: My hon. and gallant Friend sticks to his point very hard. The oilier day I asked him to suggest to me the names of witnesses he thought ought to be called by the Select Committee. He did so, and I have communicated these names to the Committee, and I have every hope that they will be called.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Seeing that it is the Government of India that is in question, will it not be possible to call more Indians before the Committee. Why should people like Lajpat Rai be prohibited coining to this country to give evidence?

Mr. MONTAGU: I have not the slightest doubt that the Committee will call for and get what evidence is required.

Colonel YATE: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether, considering that the Indian extremists and soi-disant moderates are represented by large deputations now in this country, and that there are many organisations of Mahomedans and the working classes of India which are prevented by want of money from sending their representatives, as they are most anxious to do, the Government of India will provide the necessary funds in order that these poor people may be properly represented and thus placed in a position of equality before the Joint Select Committee on the Government of India Bill with the Brahmin and higher caste deputations?

Mr. MONTAGU: I have repeatedly stated that I will do all in my power to get for the Joint Committee any evidence for which it asks. I do not regard the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion as practicable.

Colonel YATE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that rural committees in India have applied to the Government of India for help to come and give evidence? Are not their views to be represented?

Mr. MONTAGU: I understand that the Government has not helped any deputation to come to this country, but has simply provided facilities for those who wish to come at their own expense. I do not see how it is possible to differentiate between one deputation and another.

Colonel YATE: These people are poor agriculturists. Why should not the Government give them help to come to this country?

Mr. MONTAGU: If my hon. and gallant Friend wishes to add that suggestion to the others he has made I will certainly communicate it to the Government.

Lieut. - Colonel POWNALL: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he will suggest to the Joint Select Committee on the Government of India Bill the advisability of taking evidence of some of those who have recently held Provincial Governorships or other high official positions?

Mr. MONTAGU: Yes, Sir, certainly. Part of the evidence already taken toy the Committee has been of the kind referrd to; and as I informd the hon. and gallant Member for Melton on Wednesday, I shall be happy to submit further names for the Committee's consideration.

DISCHARGED BRITISH OFFICERS (EMPLOYMENT).

Colonel YATE: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he can say, approximately, how many British officers of the Indian Army who have been invalided out of the Service owing to wounds or ill-health due to active service in the War have been provided with civil employment in the United Kingdom; and how many of those still seeking employment will he be able to recommend for service in a civil capacity in Palestine, Syria, Mesopotamia, or East Africa?

Mr. MONTAGU: Arrangements have been made with the Ministry of Labour, as the central authority for questions of resettlement, to make the machinery of the Appointments Department available to officers of the Indian Army equally with those of the British Service. No separate figures for Indian Army officers are kept by the Appointments Department. Every effort is made to help these officers, but it is difficult to find suitable employment for an officer who has been rendered unfit for further service by wounds or ill-health. In regard to the second part of the question, I am already in communication with the authorities concerned as to the possibility of finding posts for any disabled officers of the Indian Army in the countries which have temporarily come under British administration or control.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

MENTAL CASES (MAINTENANCE).

Mr. T. THOMSON: 12.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the Ministry of Pensions, in a letter dated the 12th instant, reference Treatment/INS/N.G.R., 861, stated that Stoker James Robinson, First Class, No. K.24942, Royal Navy, was awarded a gratuity of £15, but as, up to the 30th April, 1918, there was no provision for the Ministry bearing the cost of a man's maintenance in a mental hospital, the gratuity was absorbed by the cost of maintenance prior to that date; and whether, in view of the decision of the Admiralty that it is not allowable for deductions to be made from war gratuity on account of hospital treatment, he will ask the Ministry of Pensions to refund to Stoker James Robinson the £15 war gratuity which they state they have received on this man's account?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Colonel Sir James Craig): I have been asked to answer this question. This man was discharged on 2nd September, 1915, with neurasthenia, not attributable to service. 1.1 April, 1918, he was awarded a gratuity of £15. In May, 1918, the clerk to the Middlesbrough Asylum reported that Robinson had been admitted to the asylum on 27th November, 1915, and had remained there until 20th April, 1917, that he had again been admitted on 12th January, 1918, and was still an inmate. The asylum was then instructed to classify him as a Service patient, and from 10th April, 1918, his wife and two children have been receiving full allowances. The gratuity was withheld to meet any claim which the guardians might make to meet the cost (over £50) of his maintenance prior to classification. The guardians have been asked whether they will waive their claim in favour of Mrs. Robinson. If they agree to do so the amount will be issued to her less the sum of £2 10s. advanced by the war pensions committee. The decision of the Admiralty applies only to the war gratuities issued by that Department.

Mr. THOMSON: Is it understood that these charges are to be deducted from gratuities granted by the Admiralty? Does the hon. Gentleman think it desirable to differentiate in this way the claims made on gratuities granted.

Sir J. CRAIG: That is a rather wide question. If my hon. Friend will put down a specific case, 1 shall be very glad to consider it.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS FOR GERMANS.

Sir F. HALL: 27.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any official information showing that the manager of a German firm at Moscow has been placed in control of the Ministries of Trade and Industries, Transport, and War Supplies, and that as a result of this Germans are being given important appointments in these Departments; and if, in view of the stimulus which is thus given to German trade and the position of British trade owing to the diminishing outlet for home manufacture, he will state what, if any, practical action the Government intend to take in the matter?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: (Department of Oversea Trade): I have no official information on the subject, but my attention has been drawn to a letter from the Prime Minister of the Provisional Government of North Russia, which appeared in the Press on 10th July, stating that Mr. Krassin, a German citizen and the manager of a large German firm, had accepted the control of the Ministries of Trade and Industries, Transport, and War Supplies in Moscow, conditionally upon being allowed to introduce a number of other Germans into those Departments.
As regards the second part of the question, I must refer the hon. Member to the reply which my hon. Friend the Member for Luton gave on the 17th July to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull.

Sir F. HALL: Does the hon. Baronet appreciate the importance of the point of these Germans being appointed in Russia, and, if the Department has not any official information, will it find out whether this is being done?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The importance of the question and the facts in the answer are fully appreciated by the Government.

CONSCRIPTION.

Captain BAGLEY: 28.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any Soviet or Bolshevik Governments have enforced Conscription; if so, what treat-
ment is accorded to conscientious objectors; and whether it is the declared policy of foreign Bolsheviks to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries, even to the extent, if and when possible, of armed intervention?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: In reply to the first part of the hon. and gallant Member's question, one of the fundamental laws of the Russian Soviet Government, as adopted by the 5th All Russian Convention of Soviets on 10th July, 1018, is that it establishes universal obligatory military service. I am unable to say how far this has been enforced, but the numerous peasant risings against Conscription which have been reported, and the treatment of officers whose wives and families are held as hostages to ensure their continuing in Bolshevik service, make it appear that no special regard is paid to conscientious objections. It is not understood to what class of' persons or Government allusion is made in the third part of the question.

SOVIET GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS

Mr. SWAN: 61.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that Mr. Philip Kerr handed to Mr. Bullit, an official of the American Peace delegation in Paris, a Memorandum in Mr. Kerr's own handwriting containing proposals for an agreement with Mr. Lenin, head of the Soviet Government of Russia; whether Mr. Kerr took this action with the Prime Minister's approval; and what action he proposes to take?

Lieut.-Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 75.
asked the-Prime Minister whether an offer of peace was conveyed to the Bolshevist Government and accepted on the following terms: Recognition of the Governments now existing in Russia, the raising of the blockade, full and complete amnesty for political opponents, the recognition of Russia's financial obligations, and the reduction of the Soviet and anti-Soviet Armies; and whether the Government will once more open negotiations on these lines and endeavour to ascertain whether the Soviet Government is prepared to abstain from military aggression and political propaganda outside Russia and grant an amnesty to political opponents and impartial justice to all classes?

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): The statement on which the ques-
tion is based is absolutely without any foundation in fact. As I stated in this House some months ago, the Prime Minister knew nothing about the supposed mission of Mr. Bullit until after this gentleman had returned. The suggestion, therefore, that any statement had been handed to him by Mr. Philip Kerr, who has been acting as one of the secretaries of the Prime Minister, was obviously absurd, but in order that there should be no possibility of any misunderstanding, we have communicated with Mr. Kerr, who replies that the statement is quite untrue.

MILITARY OPERATIONS (COST).

Mr. SWAN: 62.
asked the Prime Minister whether any agreement, arrangement, understanding, or promise exists between this country and the Peace Conference, the League of Nations, France, Italy, the United States, or any other Power, as to the cost of the military and naval and diplomatic operations undertaken against the Soviet Government of Ruusia; if any such exists can its terms or main features be stated; and whether the various Powers sending troops, munitions, food, supplies, shipping, or other aid to the anti-Soviet forces or districts of Russia are sending Such aid at their own charges, or on some arrangement for payment by this or any other country?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first and third parts of the hon. Member's question is that certain agreements have been concluded between the Allied and Associated Governments in regard to the apportionment of expenditure connected with joint Allied operations in Russia. The agreements in question have been concluded by His Majesty's Government with their Allies, and could not be made public without their consent.

BOLSHEVIST PROPAGANDA.

Colonel BURN: 66.
asked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to a pamphlet that is being widely distributed by post advocating Bolshevism, and quoting the Russian correspondent of the "Daily News" as proving that Russia is flourishing under Bolshevist rule, that the universities have increased from six to sixteen, the number of students increased, and 1,100 versts of railway and 1,200 versts of roads are under construction; and if he will say what steps does he intend to take to counteract this propaganda?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): The leaflet to which the hon. and gallant Member appears to refer consists of extracts from Arthur Ransome's book, "Six Weeks in Russia in 1919." The real facts about the effects of Bolshevism, both in Russia and Hungary, are described almost daily in the newspapers, and so many persons, quite as well informed at first hand as the author of the leaflet, are publishing their experiences, that no further steps seem to be called for. I gather that from Mr. Ransome's book the information it contains is founded on a short trip to Russia, undertaken under the auspices of the Soviet Government while there is abundance of evidence available to the public which is derived from more independent sources, and is based on wider experience.

Colonel BURN: Docs the right hon. Gentleman think that the truth actually reaches those people? Is he aware that a great deal of money is being spent on the circulation of this travesty of the facts?

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Has any good come out of Russia at all?

NORTH RUSSIA (WAR PRISONERS).

Mr. A. DAVIES: 77.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether it was the custom of British officers to induce or allow prisoners of war to take up arms and fight against their own countrymen; whether he was aware that such action on the part of General Ironside resulted in the death of six gallant: British officers; and whether he would issue an order forbidding the use of prisoners of war for the purpose above-named?

Captain GUEST: The battalion in question was formed of prisoners of war who had been forcibly compelled to serve by the enemy, and who were glad of an opportunity to fight with us against their former masters. It is feared that some of these prisoners wore sent deliberately by the Bolsheviks for the express purpose of propaganda and assassination, and the mutiny was caused by these agents. We have evidence that similar efforts were made to introduce Bolshevik agitators in British units. The loss of the gallant British lives is deeply regretted, and by no one more so than by the distinguished general in whom His Majesty's Government have complete confidence.

Mr. DAVIES: Is it in accordance with Army Regulations to issue an order for the purpose named in the question?

Captain GUEST: It is impossible to answer the question in that form. The answer is that the General Officer on the spot is entitled to make what use he can of recruits, wherever they may be found. Many of these men who surrendered evinced a desire to fight for us against their previous masters.

Oral Answers to Questions — ITALY.

PRO-GERMAN PROPAGANDA.

Captain FOXCROFT: 30.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that our popularity in Italy is becoming gravely endangered by increasing pro-German propaganda; whether he is aware that this propaganda is being powerfully assisted by the recent action of the Allies upon the Fiume question, the decrease in our coal export to Italy due to our decrease of output, and the shortage of food; and whether, in consideration of these things, of our traditional friendship with Italy, and of her services and sufferings during the War, His Majesty's Government contemplate affording to Italy equal facilities in the matter of food as are being afforded either to Germany or Austria?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am convinced that the ties of traditional friendship between this country and Italy, to which the hon. and gallant Member refers, are too deeply rooted to be seriously affected either by hostile, propaganda or by causes and conditions arising out of four years of war. But he may rest assured that we shall do all in our power to render every assistance to our Italian Ally, and that she now enjoys far greater facilities in the matter of supplies than either Germany or Austria.

FIUME.

Captain FOXCROFT: 31.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government will promote the compromise suggested by Italy, whereby the population of Fiume should have the protection of the Italian flag while the port should become a free port open alike to Italy and Yugo-Slav?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: This matter is in the hands of the Peace Conference at Paris, and I cannot anticipate their decision with regard to it.

Oral Answers to Questions — PASSPORTS TO CONTINENT (BRITISH SUBJECTS).

Mr. GILBERT: 32.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is proposed to relax in any way the conditions on which passports are issued to British subjects proceeding to the Continent now that Peace terms have been signed; and, if so, will he state what the new conditions will be and from what date they will be brought into effect?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: No restrictions are now imposed on the issue of passports for British subjects to proceed to the Continent provided they do not contemplate entering the enemy countries.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is my hon. Friend aware of the time it takes to get a passport now before you can get all the formalities completed, and that on returning to this country people are penned like sheep for an hour before they can get their passports examined at Boulogne and that the greatest inconvenience is suffered?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: As far as the examination of returning passengers at Boulogne is concerned, I cannot give any answer to that. As far as the issue of passports is concerned, in this country everything possible is done to expedite the issue and minimise the inconvenience of applicants.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will my hon. Friend consider the possibility of English citizens returning to this country without having this delay, because that is the moat inconvenient thing? Would it not be possible to examine the passports of aliens coming to this country and to exempt English people from these intolerable delays?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am sure my; hon. and gallant Friend will not expect me to give an answer on. a question like that. As one who has travelled recently on the Continent, I can say that whatever inspection is now required it is justified.

Sir J. D. REES: Will the hon. Baronet represent to the Secretary of State that
getting a passport is still rather like undergoing an -operation? Will he endeavour to simplify that tiresome process?

Mr. G. TERRELL: Will the hon. Baronet hurry up the viséing of passports? A great part of the day is wasted in getting a passport viséd.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: With regard to the complaint as to the issuing of passports, that is not a matter solely concerned with the British Government, but With the representatives of foreign Governments as well.

Colonel YATE: How long did it take the hon. Baronet to get his own passport?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will my hon. Friend try making a trip to Paris without a diplomatic passport?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: As soon as my official duties will permit me I shall be delighted.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE DAY (PAYMENT OF WORKERS).

Mr. FREDERICK ROBERTS: 26.
asked the Minister of Labour whether payment for Peace Day was granted to workers in all controlled firms; and, if so, is he aware that certain firms have not yet paid in accordance with the award

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Wardle): No distinction was made between controlled and uncontrolled firms. The position was that in Government industrial establishments wages at plain time rates were to be paid to direct employés. As regards Government contractors, payment or non-payment should depend on the trade custom in the district concerned. As regards firms other than Government contractors, the matter was one entirely for the discretion of the firms concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — COST OF LIVING.

Captain BAGLEY: 22.
asked the Minister of Labour if he can state, approximately and as far as he is able, how much would the gross average weekly income of the following individuals, spent upon each of the commodities and services mentioned, purchase now, expressed as a percentage of what could be purchased by
their pre-war income at pre-war prices, assuming an average worker doing a full week's work and giving a specific trade or calling, commodity, or locality where unable to give an average; Individuals: Coal-miner, transport worker, docker, skilled artisan, unskilled labourer, agricultural labourer, policeman, Civil Service clerk, elementary school teacher, shop assistant, and individual drawing pension, superannuation, or compensation at prewar rates; Services and commodities: Travelling, rent. coal, food, boots, clothing, cotton goods, and woollen underwear?

Mr. WARDLE: I regret that the information available is not sufficient to enable me to give the desired particulars.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED SERVICES FUND.

Commander Viscount CURZON: 13.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, as stated, the administration of naval and military funds is to be placed under the control of a distinguished soldier; and, if so, will he indicate what naval funds are. referred to?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): An. official statement issued by the War Office in regard to the formation of the United Services Fund appeared in the Press on Saturday last. As explained is a reply to a question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hull Central, on the 14th May--a copy of which I am sending the Noble Lord—no naval funds will be allocated for this or any other purpose without the scheme being approved by the Fleet.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

GERMAN WARSHIPS SUSK AT SCAPA FLOW

Viscount CURZON: 14.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can make any statement as to what progress has been made with the salvage of the ex-German Fleet at Scapa, and as to whether a Court of Inquiry has been held into the circumstances attending the sinking of the ships referred to; and if he is in a position to make any further statement with reference to any new facts which may have transpired as to the preparations made by the Germans for, it?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Long): The present situation with regard to salvage of the ex-German Fleet at Scapa is:

1 battleship, "Baden,"

3 light cruisers, "Emden," "Frankfurt, "Nurnberg," and

15 destroyers are salved.

Salvage operations on three more destroyers are proceeding, but no further steps are being taken, at present with regard to the remainder of ships and destroyers. I have nothing at present to add to the statement I have already made. It is not proposed to hold a Court of Inquiry.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are steps being taken to get hold of the very powerful German salvage plant at Hamburg and Bremen to assist in the salving of these ships?

Mr. LONG: No, I do not think anything of that sort is necessary. I believe we have the best salvage plant in the world.

Viscount CURZON: 45.
asked the Prime Minster what has been decided as to the fate of any ex-German ships salved at Scapa Flow and also the ex-German "Goeben"?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am informed that no decision has yet been taken by the Peace Conference in Paris.

Mr. RENWICK: Before the Government come to any decision in regard to repairing these vessels will they take into account the fact that at the present time there is an enormous amount of repairs necessary for merchant ships, and that it is much more important to repair them than these warships?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am quite sure the Government thoroughly agrees with my hon. Friend, and they would never agree to take time and money for repairing these ships.

NEW CONSTRUCTION (COMMITTEE).

Commander Viscount CURZON: 15.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what are the terms of reference to Admiral Phillimore's Committee on new construction?

Mr. LONG: The Committee will consider, in the light of the experience of the War, the uses and values of the different types of war vessels; and will advise as to the main naval requirements of each type.

NAVAL RATINGS (COAL STRIKE).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 17.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what extra pay and allowances will be paid to the naval officers and ratings employed about the mines in connection with the mining strike; and upon whom will fall the total charge in connection with their employment at the mines?

Mr. LONG: The matter is under consideration.

NAVAL NUESING SISTERS.

Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 20.
asked the Secretary to the Admiralty if any increase of pay, gratuity, or war gratuity has been or is to be given to the naval nursing sisters for their work?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I presume that my hon. and gallant Friend's question refers to nursing sisters and reserve nursing sisters of Queen Alexandra's Royal Naval Nursing Service, and not to V.A.D. nursing members or British Red Cross Association nurses employed in naval hospitals. The rates of pay of Reserve nursing sisters wore revised in September, 1919. The rates of pay for nursing sisters (active service) is at present under consideration. We are at present in correspondence with the War Office on this point, and that Department hopes to be in a position to give its observations shortly. No war bonus is payable to nurses, as they arc in receipt of free victualling, and the larger part of their uniform is provided at public expense. It has been decided to extend the War Office scheme of war gratuities for nurses to the naval nursing staff, and it is hoped to publish full details in the Press at an early date.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLAND.

TREATMENT OF JEWS.

Mr. RAPER: 33.
asked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs if he has now come to any decision as regards the desirability of publishing a full statement, based on the reports already received from British and American investigators, regarding the alleged anti-Jewish pogroms in Poland, in order that the Polish nation may be acquitted of the charges levelled against them?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: His Majesty's Government realise that it is very desirable that a full and authoritative state-
ment should be made in regard to the treatment of Jews in Poland. As I have before said, reports have been received from His Majesty's Minister in Warsaw, and a further dispatch is shortly expected. We propose to send one or two persons to Poland to make an independent and thorough inquiry into the so-called pogroms about which very conflicting reports have reached this country. These persons will, it is hoped, be in close touch with the special Commissioner to be sent to Poland for a similar purpose by the United States Government. I hope to be able to announce their names very shortly. I think the hon. Member will agree that the immediate publication of a statement by His Majesty's Government would, in the circumstances, be undesirable.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the hon. Gentleman see that one of the Commissioners is a Jew?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am not responsible for the selection of the Commissioners, but I will refer the question of my hon. and gallant Friend to the Department.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH CONSUL, GENEVA.

Mr. STURROCK: 35.
asked the Undersecretary for Foreign Affairs whether he can inform the House of the name and qualifications of the British Consul at Geneva; the length of this gentleman's service under the Foreign Office; and whether he will state this gentleman's qualifications for the post?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The British Consulate at Geneva has hitherto been an unsalaried post which was held by Monsieur de Candolle, a Swiss citizen, for the last seven years. Monsieur de Candolle has now resigned, and Geneva is to be made a paid Consulate-General. Pending the creation of this post, Geneva is in charge of an acting officer, who, until recently, was acting-consul at St. Moritz.

Oral Answers to Questions — ASSAULT AND ROBBERY, LIVERPOOL.

Sir HENRY CRAIK: 36.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to an assault and robbery which took place in Liverpool on 10th June, and of which
the victims were Messrs. C. R. Cathline, junior, T. Jones-Nelson, and J. W. Nelson, all of whom had arrived the previous day by the is. "Mandingo" from Accra; and whether His Majesty's Government will take any steps to secure redress and compensation for this outrage, which was committed in broad daylight, in the middle of Liverpool, on three British subjects of the Gold Coast?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Lieut.-Colonel Amery): The matter has only just been brought to the Secretary of State's notice, and he proposes to communicate at once with the Corporation of Liverpool on the subject. I need hardly add that he profoundly deplores the outrage committed upon these gentlemen.

Sir H. CRAIK: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Watch Committee of Liverpool have repudiated all responsibility, and any power to make reparation, and in these circumstances will His Majesty's Government think it proper to intervene in the case?

Lieut. Colonel AMERY: Yes, we have heard of the attitude taken. In the first instance we are communicating with the Liverpool Corporation to get a statement of the facts.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEMOBILISATION.

DERBY SCHEME MEN.

Sir WILLIAM SEAGER: 40.
asked the Secretary for War if he is aware- that great dissatisfaction exists among the men who enlisted under the Derby scheme as, although they attested prior to 1st January, 1916, they were not called up until after that date, and in consequence their demobilisation is delayed; and will he consider granting to them the advantage of the same regulations as to demobilisation as have been granted to the men who joined up prior to 1st January, 1916, and treat them as having joined on the date on which they offered their services?

Captain GUEST (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): Eligibility for demobilisation in such cases is determined by the length of actual service with the Colours, calculated from the Sate of joining up for immediate service. I regret that I cannot, in fairness to men with longer service, adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Sir W. SEAGER: Will the hon. Gentleman sympathetically consider these men? They volunteered for service and were told to go back to their usual occupation until they wore wanted, and now they are penalised for doing that.

Captain GUEST: It is quite true; but a. date had to be set up, and the only date for that purpose was the actual date of joining the Colours.

Mr. SPENCER: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of burning all the Regulations they have got, and issuing fresh ones which they have some hope of keeping?

Captain GUEST: I am afraid the bonfire would be a very big one.

COMPULSORY MILITARY SERVICE.

Mr. R. YOUNG: 78.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he would explain the meaning of the words "and young recruits who did not join in time to share in the fighting," which appeared at the end of paragraph 3 of his Memorandum on Demobilisation, 16th July; and whether this was an intimation that such young recruits who do not volunteer would be retained in the Army beyond the 30th of April, 1920, contrary to the law as contained in the Act of Parliament prolonging compulsory military service to that date?

Captain GUEST: The phrase to which my hon. Friend alludes was intended to refer to those recruits who, either because they were insufficiently trained, or on ac count of their youth, did not embark for any theatre of war or garrison abroad before the Armistice was signed, and who may, if required, be retained by law till the 30th April, 1920. There is no present intention of retaining these soldiers beyond the period authorised by the Naval, Military, and Air Force (Service) Act.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMY CHAPLAIN'S DEPARTMENT.

Major COLFOX: 42.
asked whether any scheme is under consideration for the reconstruction of the Royal Army Chaplain's Department; and whether, in view of the recommendations contained in Sir Douglas Haig's dispatch, it is proposed to bring the Department under the control of the Adjutant-General?

Captain GUEST: A scheme for the reorganisation of the Royal Army Chaplains Department is now under consideration.

Major COLFOX: 43.
asked what are the conditions of service; and pension under which the appointment of Chaplain- General of the Forces is held; and how long has the present Chaplain-General held the appointment?

Captain GUEST: The Chaplain-General is appointed by the Secretary of State for War. He may retire voluntarily on retired pay on or after attaining the age of sixty, or, if promoted from the rank of chaplain, and having at least twenty years' service, he may retire before the age of sixty. The age for compulsory retirement is sixty-five. The scale of retired pay is governed by length of service. The present Chaplain-General has held the appointment since 1901. He attains the age of sixty in 1920, and not having previously served as a chaplain, he is not entitled to any retired pay if retired before that date. In 1920 he would be eligible for retired pay at £400 a year. In 1021 he would complete twenty years' service, when he would be eligible for retired pay at £600 a year, which is the maximum rate.

Major COLFOX: 44.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he will state how many Church of England chaplains took part in the military procession in London on Saturday, 19th July; of these how many were Regular officers of the Royal Army Chaplains' Department; and whether the Deputy Chaplain-General, British Expeditionary Force, took part or was consulted in the choice of representatives of the Department?

Captain GUEST: Eight Church of England chaplains took part in the procession on the 19th July, 'and of these seven were Regular officers of the Royal Army Chaplains' Department. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — THANKS OF PARLIAMENT TO FORCES.

Major O'NEILL: 47.
asked the Prime Minister when he proposes to move that the thanks of Parliament be accorded to the Forces of the Crown for their services in the War?

Mr. BONAR LAW: It is intended that this Motion should be proposed before the Recess, and I hope to be able early next week to give the date on which it will be taken.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL SUPPLIES.

NATIONALISATION OF MINES.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has now fixed a date for the statement in this House of the Government's policy in regard to the nationalisation of the mining industry?

Lieut. Colonel CAMPION: 51.
asked whether an opportunity will be given to debate the question of the nationalisation of the mining industry on a date previous to the declaration of policy by the Government?

Major NEWMAN: 60.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that, in the speeches made by himself and the Lord Privy Seal in November and December of last year, and in which the electorate were asked to support a Coalition Government, no mention was made of the nationalisation of any of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; and, if the Government have determined to deal with the subject, will he announce its policy before the Recess, so that it may be debated in the country before an Autumn Session?

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: 67.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention had been called to the suggestion for the establishment of a Ministry of Mines in the Report of Sir A. Duckham; and, if so, whether he is yet in a position to state the views of the Government with regard thereto?

Major BARNES: 68 and 69.
asked the Prime Minister (1) whether, in view of the complete agreement in all the Reports of the Coal Commission that great changes must be made in the administration of the coal industry and the substantial agreement between all the Reports on the nature of the changes, he will say whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce the necessary legislation required to enable those changes to be carried out under the direction of a Ministry of Mines or a Mines Department, while leaving the question of nationalisation to be decided after the effect of these changes has been seen;
(2) Whether, in view of the complete agreement in all the Reports of the Coal Commission that the coal royalties should be nationalised, he will say whether it is the intention of the Government to nationalise the coal royalties?

Major TRYON: 74.
asked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to the Motion, on the subject of the nationalisation of the mining industry, standing in the name of the senior Member for Brighton; and will he give an early day for the discussion of this matter?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I regret that I am not in a position to add anything to what I said in reply to questions on this subject in the House yesterday.

Major TRYON: Will the right hon. Gentleman remember that approval by the House of Commons is necessary to give full authority to the Government plan, whatever it may be, for dealing with this urgent national question, and that the House may not be sitting?

Mr. BONAR LAW: We fully realise that, and there can be no question of any action of any kind being taken by the Government without the approval of the House of Commons.

Mr. G. TERRELL: Are we likely to have a statement before the Recess?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I have said so many times, but I am sure that hon. Members realise that there is no question more important and more vital to the interests of the nation, and it is not unreasonable that it should be examined from every point of view before a statement is made.

Major NEWMAN: Has the Government a mandate from the country to nationalise any thing?

Mr. BONAR LAW: So far as I know, I do not think there ever was an election where it was made plainer that the problems before us could not be defined in advance, and that we must rely upon the House of Commons to support us in any steps necessary for dealing with them.

Sir F. LOWE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any claim was made by any candidate in favour of the question of nationalising a single mine?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I would not like to say that no candidate made that claim, but certainly I did not.

EXPORT TRADE.

Mr. HOUSTON: 56.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that prior to the War coal was one of our principal exports; that this export is now greatly reduced owing to the fact that America
can get and sell coal at less than half the price of British coal; whether he is aware that with the advent of millions of tons of American shipping our export of coal is likely to cease; whether he is aware that coal is the basis of ail our manufactures; that dear coal in competition with American cheap coal handicaps the export of our manufactures and results in great loss to the nation; and can he state what measures the Government propose to take to enable this country to compete with others in export trade?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir A. Geddes): The Government are fully aware of the serious effect on our export position not only of the reduced export of coal but also of its incidence on cost of production, but I am obviously not in a position to state whether an improvement in these respects may be looked for in the not distant future.

Mr. HOUSTON: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this country, more than any other, depends for its existence upon our export trade, and will he take measures so that everyone in the country may be made aware of the fact?

Sir A. GEDDES: Yes. We are doing our best to inform the country in that respect.

YORKSHIRE MINERS' STRIKE.

Lieut-Commander KENWORTHY: 93.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Yorkshire mine-owners and miners had agreed to an advance on piece rates of 14.3 per cent.; whether the Coal Controller declined to approve this agreement and fixed the rate of interest at 10 per cent.; whether he can state on what date strike notices were handed in; and who was responsible for the action of the Coal Controller?

Sir A. GEDDES: I have no official information that the Yorkshire mine-owners and minors agreed to an advance in piecework rates of 14.3 per cent. I would, however, point out to the hon. and gallant Member that, even accepting, for the sake of argument, the figures put forward by the Miners' Federation, the advance in piece-work rates for Yorkshire could not work out at a higher figure than 12.2 per cent. I must not, however, be understood as in any way accepting or disagreeing with those figures. In reply to the second part of the question, no request
was made to the Coal Controller by any party to approve any rate of increase. The Coal Controller was informed by the Mining Association of Great Britain, in a letter dated 20th June, that meetings had been held in most of the districts, but that no arrangement had been come to, and he was requested to inform the association whether piece-work rates were to be increased, and, if so, whether it was his intention to authorise the owners in each district to arrange the advances, subject to his confirmation. The Coal Controller gave instructions to the Mining Association of Great Britain, on the 26th June, that piece-work rates were to be increased by 10 per cent. when the reduction in hours was one hour, and proportionately for any lesser reduction in time worked, the increase in any district not to exceed 10 per cent. This instruction was modified on the 9th July to the extent that the 10 per cent, was to be an average over the whole country instead of a maximum. The strike notices in Yorkshire were handed in on or about the night of the 10th July. The Government accepts full responsibility for the action of the Coal Controller, and authorised all instructions sent out by him before issue.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask whether the instructions about this 10 per cent. were given only to the Mine-owners' Association and nut to the Miners' Federation, and, if that is the case, why notice was not given at the same time to the Miners' Federation and to the Yorkshire Miners' Union.

Sir A. GEDDES: There was no instruction issued at, all in the ordinarily-accepted sense of the word "instruction" that is to say, there was no instruction circulated. A letter was received and a reply was given to that letter.

Mr. CLYNES: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that, if it be the fact that the Coal Controller never prevented an arrangement between the employers and the miners, there should have, been some official statement to prevent the public misapprehension which has arisen?

Sir A. GEDDES: There have been many official statements, but it is, unfortunately, the fact that some people do not pay much attention to official statements.

Mr. GRUNDY: Can the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries to ascertain whether his statement is correct that the
owners and the men had not agreed. I wish to say that the owners both of South and West Yorkshire and the representatives of the miners had agreed to an increase of 14.3 per cent, and it was only after they had agreed that they received an instruction from the Coal Controller. [HON. MEMBERS: "Question!"] That is the position.

Sir A. GEDDES: No; really the hon. Member is entirely misinformed. The owners were negotiating not on their own behalf but on behalf of the Government whose money, or rather the taxpayers' money, was at stake. They found out what the men's claim was, and then, exactly as I have said in this reply, they applied to the Government asking what they were to do. There was no agreement.

Mr. GRUNDY: I hare it definitely. Are you aware I have a definite statement from Mr. Herbert Smith, the President of the Yorkshire Miners' Association, that the arrangement was made as I have said, and that the complaint is that the Coal Controller interfered too late, and that he ought to have interfered earlier before the negotiations.

Sir A. GEDDES: No.

Mr. GRUNDY: I have the definite statement—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] I am only doing this to try and bring peace. I am sorry the position at present is that the coal-owners blame the Government for the delay, and the men are blaming the Government, and those two people are at a deadlock and waiting for the Government or the Coal Controller to make a move in the matter. I have it definitely that the owners had agreed.

Sir A. GEDDES: It is no new thing to hear that the Government is being blamed. That is the usual procedure in all these cases, but the facts are as I stated that the Coal Controller was informed by the Mining Association of Great Britain in a letter dated 26th June that meetings had been held in most of the districts but that no arrangement had been come to, and he was requested to inform the Association whether the piece rates were to be increased. Those facts are beyond dispute in writing, and documentary evidence exists to show that the letter was received and an answer sent. I quite understand why the hon. Member (Mr. Grundy) is asking these questions, and I
appreciate that fully. With regard to the further point that there is what he calls a deadlock and delay, I do not think that is the case. There is now, or there was an hour ago, proceeding at Leeds a meeting, and I have no doubt it is still going on, at which this very difficult point is being discussed, and that meeting, I understand, is attended by three parties, the representatives of the men, the representatives of the Yorkshire employers, and the representatives of the Government, and we hope that that meeting will find some way out.

Mr. GRUNDY: I have a document here—

Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps the hon. Member will show that document to the President of the Board of Trade.

Oral Answers to Questions — POET LAUREATE.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Poet Laureate has up to the present written any Peace ode or other poem commemorative of Britain's part in the War; and, if so, whether he will supply a copy for the use of Members?

Mr. BONAR LAW: As far as I am aware, the answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; the second part does not, therefore, arise.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a portion of the remuneration of the Poet Laureate consists of a certain cash payment in lieu of a supply of Canary wine, and has the Government considered the advisability of paying that part of his salary in kind on the off-chance of his getting inspiration?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Before making that suggestion I should have to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see which would cost the country moat.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGLO-FRENCH TREATY (DEFENCE OF FRANCE).

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in the event of Britain and America being called upon under the Treaty with France to take up arms in her defence, they would automatically cease to be members of the League of Nations, having regard to the increased armaments which would be necessary for them to raise?

Mr. BONAR LAW: This question is hypothetical, and I therefore cannot answer it.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Under this Treaty which has been approved it is conceivable that Britain and America may have to take up arms in defence of France, and that means raising armaments, and is not that contrary to the League of Nations Covenant?

Mr. BONAR LAW: No, I think not; but my hon. Friend is quite as competent to advise as to what the Peace Treaty means as I am.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman take it from me that that is so?

Oral Answers to Questions — CYPRUS.

Captain ORMSBY-GORE: 53.
asked the Prime Minister whether any decision has been come to with regard to the disposition of the island of Cyprus?

Mr. BONAR LAW: No decison has been taken in this matter.

Captain ORMSBY-GORE: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the report in the papers that it has been decided to cede Cyprus, and will he take steps to contradict that statement?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I think that it has already been contradicted. It is right to say nothing so important as that would be done by the Government in such a way as to commit us in any way without the knowledge of the House of Commons?

Sir F. HALL: And without the consent of the House of Commons?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes.

An HON. MEMBER: Will the Government consider the question of the cession of Ireland to America?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.

Mr. HOUSTON: 54.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the national expenditure is about double the national revenue; and whether, in view of the disastrous consequences which must follow, he will lake immediate steps to reduce drastically expenditure in every Government Department?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir; every effort will be made to reduce national expenditure.

Mr. HOUSTON: 55.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that our mi-ports are more than double our exports, that we have now become a debtor nation, and that America and Japan, by reason of cheaper production, are cutting us out in markets in which we were once supreme; and will he state what steps are being taken by the Government to arrest this disastrous state of affairs and to revert to our pre-war prosperity?

Sir A. GEDDES: I have been asked to reply. I am very fully aware of the relative values of our imports and exports also of the keen competition which our traders have to face in foreign markets. The first step to meet the difficulties of the situation, namely, to increase production, must be taken by the people of the country themselves and not by the Government.

Mr. HOUSTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman take effective measures to-bring home to everyone in this country the grave warning given by His Majesty at the Guildhall yesterday, as to the vital necessity for the utmost economy and strenuous work on the part of everyone?

Sir A. GEDDES: The announcement made by His Majesty has received full publicity, and we have every hope that it will carry conviction to some who have not reached that stage before.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADING WITH GERMANY AND AUSTRIA.

Mr. CAIRNS: 57.
asked if it is the intention of the Government to restore all pre-war principles of trading between this country, Germany, and Austria?

Sir A. GEDDES: I would refer the hon. Member to the memorandum on conditions under which trading is permissible since the raising of the blockade (Cmd. 274), a copy of which has I understand been circulated to every Member. It is not possible to make a. further statement in anticipation of the announcement by the Government of a permanent trade policy.

Oral Answers to Questions — PROHIBITION (WINE AND SPIRITS).

Sir J. D. REES: 58.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that a body of Americans has entered the United Kingdom for the purpose of promoting the policy of prohibition, under which no per son can remove any wine or spirits from his own house to another house, whether or not his own, or carry beer or wine in his car or carriage without becoming liable to fine, impisonment, and confiscation; and whether he will take steps to make it clear that this policy has no sup port from His Majesty's Government?

Mr. SHORTT: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I have no knowledge of the activities suggested in the question except what I have gained from reading the Press. I do not think any pronouncement by the Government is necessary.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

WHEAT SUTBSIDY.

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: 59.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention had been called to the Report just issued of the Select Committee on National Expenditure dealing with the Wheat Commission; and what steps he proposed to take with regard to the proposal it contained in paragraph 35 (b), which, by a restriction of the bread subsidy to flour actually used for bread, was estimated to save £14,500,000 yearly?

The, MINISTER of FOOD (Mr. Roberts): I have been asked to reply. The Report just issued by the Select Committee on National Expenditure will receive immediate consideration, and the proposals contained in paragraph 35 (b) will be carefully examined.

MILK (FRANCE AND BELGIUM).

Lord ROBERT CECIL: 63.
asked the Prime Minister whether the populations of Belgium and Northern France are suffering in their health from want of milk; and, if so, what steps, if any, the Government intend to take to go to their assistance?

Mr. ROBERTS: I have been asked to reply. I have no reason to believe that the populations of Belgium and Northern France are suffering in their health from want of milk. As the Leader of the House stated on Monday, supplies of fresh milk
are, unfortunately, scarce in these districts, but good supplies of condensed milk have been provided.

Lord R. CECIL: Is the light hon. Gentleman aware that the babies in Germany and parts of South-Central Europe are suffering very seriously?

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is it not possible that the question of supplying milk to the women and children in Central Europe could be made the subject, of some international arrangement's

Mr. ROBERTS: I am not competent to answer questions in respect of Germany. I have answered the question on the Paper. The further question put by the Noble Lord is still the subject of international investigation.

PEACE TREATY (DELIVERY OF COWS).

Lord ROBERT CECIL: 64.
asked the Prime Minister whether the obligation for Germany to deliver] 40,000 milch cows within three months of the coming into force of the Treaty is an absolute one, or whether their delivery is within the discretion of the Reparation Commission?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am advised that the obligation is absolute, but that the time of performance will be within the discretion of the Reparation Commission.

Lord R. CECIL: Is this one of the cases in which the Reparation Commission can postpone their action by a majority or must it be a unanimous decision?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot answer that specific question without notice.

Lord R. CECIL: But as the matter stands am I not right in saying that the delivery of these cows has to be. made within three months 1

Mr. BONAR LAW: I have not myself attempted to follow the exact meaning of all these points. The answer which I have given is the answer which has been sent to me from Paris, from the Economic Council dealing with it.

Lord R. CECIL: Not the Economic Council.

Oral Answers to Questions — BELGIAN CONTRACTS (GERMAN COMPETITION).

Mr. STURROCK: 65.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that British
engineering firms tendering for contracts in Belgium find themselves unable to compete with German firms tendering for the same work; whether this is due to the German exchange being at present so low and the British exchange so high; whether the Government or the Board of Trade has had the matter under consideration; and, if so, whether a statement can be made on the whole matter?

Sir A. GEDDES: Cases of the nature indicated have been brought to the notice of the Board of Trade. In the ordinary-course movements of the foreign exchanges tend to reflect changes in relative levels of prices as between different countries, but the position is at present abnormal. There is ground for thinking that the level of prices in Germany has not risen so much as would be suggested by the depreciation in the value of the mark in neutral countries, and that to this extent and while this condition lasts exports from Germany are stimulated. With regard to exports from the United Kingdom, these would certainly tend to be encouraged by a fall in the value of sterling in terms of foreign currency. It is perhaps hardly necessary for me to add that the position of the foreign exchanges is engaging the close attention of His Majesty's Government.

Mr. G. TERRELL: Is Belgium at liberty to purchase any material which she requires from Germany?

Sir A. GEDDES: Yes. She is at liberty to make arrangements of that sort.

Sir M. DOCKRELL: Is Germany under obligation to make restitution of the special machinery which she stole from Belgium, and which is so essential to Belgium to enable her to restore her industries?

Sir A. GEDDES: That is provided for in the Peace Treaty that has been circulated.

Oral Answers to Questions — SECONDARY SCHOOLS.

Captain LOSEBY: 70.
asked the Prime Minister if in the near future, in order to meet the case of the great public schools, he intends to make any variation of the rule which compels secondary schools to accept a certain proportion of non-fee-paying pupils from primary schools?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Fisher): The Prime Minister has asked me to answer this question. If the hon. and gallant Member means to ask whether I intend to alter Article 20 of the Secondary School Regulations in order that the great public schools may be enabled to receive Grants under the Regulations without admitting free pupils from elementary schools, the answer is in the negative.

Captain LOSEBY: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that there will be no further alteration in regard to the principle upon which Grants are made to secondary schools without taking the feeling of this House?

Mr. FISHER: Certainly.

Captain LOSEBY: 71.
asked the Prime Minister whether he was aware that Grants to secondary schools were being made on variable conditions, and that in the same towns and districts one school was compelled as a, condition of Grant to accept 25 per cent. of its pupils free from primary schools, whereas a more favoured school was made to receive only 10 per cent.; and whether he would take steps to ensure that one definite rule was made generally applicable"?

Mr. FISHER: The Prime Minister has asked me to answer this question. The condition in question has remained unaltered since 1907, when it was first introduced into the Regulations for secondary schools. I do not think it would be in the public interest to alter it in the direction which the hon. and gallant Member suggests.

Captain LOSEBY: 72.
asked the Prime Minister whether, under Secondary Schools Grants Regulations, 1919, the representative majority control of State- aided secondary schools had been completely abolished, or if the new rule requiring one-third only of the councils of State-aided schools was confined to those schools not at the date of publication of the Regulations in receipt of State aid; and whether, in the latter event, he would avoid discontent and dissatisfaction by making the new Regulation generally applicable?

Mr. FISHER: The Prime Minister has asked me to answer this question. As is stated in paragraph 7 of the Explanatory
Note prefixed to the Draft Regulations for Secondary Schools, which were published on 26th May [Cmd. 180]:
It is not contemplated that the Board should undertake the revision of the Trust Deeds or Instruments of Government of schools which have already complied, in respect of the constitution of the Governing Body, with the existing conditions of grants, unless such revision is clearly advantageous to the organisation of, higher education in the area.

Oral Answers to Questions — CURRENCY (DEFLATION).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 73.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Cabinet had laid down the principles upon which the deflation of the currency would be dealt with; and, if so, what these principles were?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): The principles which His Majesty's Government propose to adopt are those outlined in the answer given to the hon. and gallant Member on Monday by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.

Lord R. CECIL: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of appointing a small expert Committee to look into this question?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes. I have seen the suggestion made by the Noble Lord. I think the work is being done by a Currency Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions — TOWER OF LONDON (CHARGES).

Mr. GILBERT: 79.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he would state on what conditions the Tower of London is open for view to the public; if special facilities are or can be given by which parties of school children can view the historical buildings on any day free of charge; and if he would give instructions that no charge shall be made to parties of school children under proper control, as is now done?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER Of WORKS (Sir Alfred Mond): The public are admitted to the Tower daily, except on Sundays, Good Friday, and Christmas Day. The fees for admission are 6d. for the Bloody Tower, 6d. for the Jewel House, and 9d. for the combined tour of the vaults and armouries in the White Tower, children being admitted at half-
price. Free admission to the Jewel House and White Tower is granted on Saturdays and Bank Holidays. I am at present considering, in communication with the Board of Education, some extension of the facilities for free admission in the case of conducted parties of elementary school children where the visit is for educational purposes.

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEA SOLDIER (PASSAGE MONEY).

Mr. R. GWYNNE: 81.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he would see that Sergeant R. E. Carter, M.M., No. 280625, Royal Garrison Artillery, was refunded his passage money, which he paid to come over from Canada in 1914 in order to join His Majesty's forces; whether he was aware that application had been repeatedly made both by Sergeant Carter and the hon. Member for Eastbourne to have this claim dealt with; and, in view of the fact that Sergeant Carter was due to sail for Canada on Saturday next, would he see that the money, 70 dollars, was paid to him before that date and the documents which he sent up to prove his claim, and which have not been returned, were sent back to him?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): Payment of the amount due on this claim (£12 7s. 1d.) has been made to Sergeant Carter, but the document which he forwarded in support of the claim is necessarily retained as a voucher.

Oral Answers to Questions — CENOTAPH, WHITEHALL.

Mr. HAILWOOD: 86.
asked the First Commissioner of Works why the cenotaph erected to our glorious dead in Whitehall should have on it no prayer nor mention of God nor Cross or other symbol of Christianity, seeing that ours is a Christian country and not a heathen nation?

Sir A. MOND: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given yesterday by the Leader of the House to a similar question by the Noble Lord the Member for the Aldershot Division of Hampshire.

Mr. HAILWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are hundreds of war shrines erected in the streets
of our cities and towns by the people themselves, and that in all cases they have some religious emblem?

Sir A. MOND: I must refer the hon. Member to the answer given yesterday.

Oral Answers to Questions — DANCING, ROYAL PARKS.

Major BARNETT: 87.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether, in view of the success of the public entertainments given in the Royal Parks on Peace Day, he would consider the possibility of arranging, either in co-operation with the League of Arts or otherwise, for dancing in the parks on Saturday afternoons in August and September?

Sir A. MOND: I am in communication with the League of Arts on the question raised by the hon. Member, and will give the matter careful consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIPPENHAM MOTOR DEPOT.

Mr. INSKIP: 88.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he was aware that a large number of railway wagons are being used to convey broken-down motor vehicles to the Cippenham. depot; and whether, in view of the number of vehicles already collected and stored in the open awaiting facilities for repair, he would take steps to prevent railway plant and labour being used for this purpose as long as the congestion of the ports and the delays at collieries for want of wagons continue?

The DEPUTY-MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): I have been asked to answer this question, and would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him yesterday.

Mr. INSKIP: May I ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he approves of the use of trucks for carrying broken-down motor vehicles, which was the question on the Paper?

Sir A. GEDDES: The whole of these uses of the railways are interrelated. It is no use having a great block of broken-down vehicles at the ports. The best adjustment is made to get the best results.

Mr. INSKIP: Am I to understand that in order to remove the great block of motor vehicles at the ports, trucks are
used to carry them to Cippenham, as I was told yesterday that they were not used?

Sir A. GEDDES: I require notice of that.

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE (OFFICERS).

Dr. M'DONALD: 89.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he would endeavour to have extended to demobilised officers of the Mercantile Marine the same facilities and financial aid for higher education which had already been granted to demobilised officers of the Navy and Army?

Mr. WARDLE: I have been asked to reply to this question. I regret I have nothing to add to the answer which was given to the hon. Member for the Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities on the 14th April last.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION.

NOTTINGHAM STATION (MIDLAND RAILWAY).

Mr. ATKEY: 94.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the information supplied to him by the Midland Railway Company in respect of the opening of one of the closed entrances to their Nottingham station is incorrect, and that the opening of the entrance opposite Trent Street would not involve any additional booking office accommodation or the appointment of any additional booking clerks, none of which have ever been provided at this entrance prior to its closure; whether he has caused an inspector to be sent down to make inquiries on the spot; and, if so, whether he will be instructed to make inquiries from the town clerk on behalf of the corporation and the secretary to the chamber of commerce as to the views and convenience of the travelling public?

Sir A. GEDDES: It appears to me that if the policy of the company, namely, to convert Nottingham Station from an open to a closed one, is continued, the opening of an additional entrance will necessarily involve additional booking-office accommodation. I am asking an inspecting officer of railways to take an opportunity of visiting the station, but if the corporation or chamber of commerce desire to offer any observations it would, I think,
be convenient if they would do so is writing before the inspecting officer visits the place.

Mr. ATKEY: May I ask why it should be necessary for that to be provided now, when prior to the closing for fifteen or twenty years the accommodation existing was available without either booking office or attendants?

Sir A.. GEDDES: My hon. Friend does not appear to have listened to the reply to the question, that
if the policy of the company to convert Nottingham Station from an open to a closed one is continued, the opening of an additional entrance will necessarily involve additional booking-office accommodation.

Mr. ATKEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Great Central station at Nottingham is a closed station under precisely similar conditions, and why should not the Midland Company provide the accommodation which is demanded by the travelling public at Nottingham?

Sir A. GEDDES: My hon. Friend will remember that, at his suggestion, we decided to send an inspecting officer of railways to look at the station, and that without the plans before me I could not say whether the description is accurate.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee D.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 152.]

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 152.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 157.]

Oral Answers to Questions — BOLAND'S DIVORCE BILL [Lords].

Message to the Lords to request that their Lordships will be pleased to communicate to this House Copies of the Minutes of Evidence and Proceedings, together with the Documents deposited, in the case of Boland's Divorce Bill [Lords].— [The Lord Advocate.]

Oral Answers to Questions — COMPENSATION FOR SUBSIDENCE BILL.

Leave given to the Standing Committee E to make a Special Report in respect of the Compensation for Subsidence Bill.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed [No. 153.]

Oral Answers to Questions — INTESTATE MOVEABLE SUCCESSION (SCOTLAND)BILL [Lords]

Read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 158.]

Oral Answers to Questions — SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

SIR SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A: Lord Hugh Cecil, Captain Foxcroft, Mr. Inskip, Mr. Ronald McNeill, Sir William Pearce, Mr. Reid, Mr. Sitch, and Captain Watson.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Member to Standing Committee A (in respect of the Coal Mines Bill): Mr. Secretary Shortt.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to—

Stocksbridge Gas Bill,

Waterford Harbour Bill, with Amendments.

Orders of the Day — WEST INDIAN COURT OF APPEAL BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Lieut.-Colonel Amery): I beg to move,
That the Bill be now read a second time.
This Bill provides for the constitution of a West Indian Court of Appeal for the Colonies of Trinidad and Tobago, British Guiana, Barbados, the Leeward Islands, Grenada, St. Lucia, and St. Vincent. The more distant islands of Jamaica, British Honduras and the Bahamas are so many hundreds of miles away that they have not, up to the present at any rate, evinced a desire for co-operation in this particular purpose. Power is, however, taken in this Bill to bring other Colonies within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal by Order in Council if the Legislature of the Colony so provides, and similarly there is a provision that if the Legislature of any Colony included wish to be no longer under the Court of Appeal it can make provision to that effect. The existing Windward Islands Appeal Court, set up by an Act of 1889, is superseded and replaced by this new Court of Appeal. The proposed Court is normally to be presided over by the Chief Justice of Trinidad with the Chief Justices of the Islands and Colonies to which the Act applies. If any of them are unable to attend their places are to be taken by duly qualified substitutes, and there is power also under the Bill by which His Majesty may appoint an additional judge of the Court of Appeal.
The Court itself will be an itinerant one, and will visit the various Colonies in succession to take their appeals. There is no interference contemplated with the right of appeal to the Privy Council, except in so far as local Legislatures may provide that appeals from their Courts should in the first instance go to the West Indian Court of Appeal. This proposal to set up a single Court of Appeal for the West Indies, or for a great part of the West Indies, has been discussed for a great many years, and, as the outcome of these discussions, an Intercolonial Conference met at Trinidad in 1916, and formulated proposals which are the basis of the
present Bill. It is thus an agreed measure as far as those who are affected by it are concerned, and the only reason why it has come before this House is that the proposed legislation affects a number of Colonies simultaneously and in combination, and that for that reason an Imperial Statute is required. The House of Commons is, in fact, being asked to do what it has so often done before when different Legislatures in the Empire have wished to combine for some common purpose. It is the residual power of legislating for the whole Empire in order to enable them to achieve their objects in the most convenient and most expeditious fashion. I have no doubt that this Court of Appeal which the West Indian Colonies ask this House to set up will be a useful institution from the legal point of view, and I think we in this House should also welcome it as an indication of the growing tendency of the British West Indies towards closer co-operation in every way. Their danger has always lain in isolation, not only from the Mother Country, but from each other, and the inevitable tendency of that isolation towards parochialism. I believe the prospects before the West Indies in the future are brighter than they have ever been in the past, and the more effectually the various Colonies work together and tend to regard themselves as a single unit for their common purposes, the more assured their future success will be.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Mr. G. MURRAY: Is it not possible to say anything on the Bill?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member did not rise in time. The House has passed the Second Reading.

Orders of the Day — WAR LOAN BILL.

Order for Third Heading read.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I beg to move,
That the Bill be now read the third time.
I will take this opportunity of making a statement to the House about the figures rather more complete than that I have given before. The revised figures now available indicate that the total of the Loan
exceeds the figures of £708,000,000 given by me on the 17th instant, just after the closing of the lists, by about £59,800,000. The revised figures are as follows: Stock and Bonds, applied for in cash, of the Funding Loan, £287,956,000; Victory Bonds, £286,748,000; total, £574,704,000, as compared with the £539,000,000 previously announced. This figure includes £18,744,250 for which Treasury Bills were tendered. It will interest the House to see that those applications are almost exactly divided equally between the Funding Loan and the Victory Bonds. Stock and Bonds created in respect of conversion are: Funding Loan, £120,617,000; Victory Bonds, £72,203,000; total, £192,820,000, as com. pared with £169,000,000 previously announced. The total Loans created in cash applications and conversions are £767.524,000, as compared with £708,000,000 previously announced by me. In considering the financial effort which these figures imply, it must be remembered that since the beginning of the calendar year 1919 there has also been raised in cash by National War Bonds of the Fourth Series £290,205,832 and by War Savings Certificates £47,000,000, making together with the Victory Loan a cash total during the calendar year, apart from Treasury Bills and short - term advances, of over £800,000,000.

Sir D. MACLEAN: On a point of Order. May I ask whether it will be open to us to discuss the question of Government expenditure or whether we are limited to the rather narrow title of the Bill?

Mr. SPEAKER: On the Third Reading the general rule is that the discussion must be limited to the contents of the Bill. This Bill, as 1 understand it, authorises the proceedings which took place in respect of the recent Loan, which was started before the Bill was introduced, but was authorised up to that time only by a Resolution of the House. This is the Bill which authorises the transactions which then took place.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I was about to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question, which, I hope, will be in order, as to the inflation of the currency. I think that is not outside the scope of the Bill. He gave us some very interesting particulars at an earlier stage, not of this Bill, but of a Bill relevant to the scope of this Bill, informing us what was the paper issue at the date of the Armistice, at the beginning of the year, and then at
about 1st April. If he could tell us-whether that has been increased, and, if so, to what extent, I think it would be a matter of public interest.

Mr. CLYNES: I think there is one question which I would like to put to my right hon. Friend on the statement which he has made, as to whether he can give the House any information as to how the investments on the part of the small investor in connection with the recent Loan compare with previous Loans, and whether he has to hand any information which shows how far industrial and trade unions and labour organisations may have invested their funds in the recent Loan as compared 'with previous Loans?

Mr. LAMBERT: Does the Treasury-consider that the response to this Loan was satisfactory, because there was a rumour that banks had to help considerably in raising money for the latter part of the Loan? I would also like to ask whether he could give us any assurance that the Government will not raise another Loan?

4.0.P.M.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid I cannot answer questions about the amount of the currency issue without notice. As regards the second question, I think I must say, speaking very broadly and generally, that the response of the small investor to the recent Loans was less, proportionately, than his response to some of the earlier Loans-I could not say about trade union money, or any other particular form of working - class money, certainly not without notice, and I am not sure whether 1 could get the information, whether the application on the face of it shows for whom it was made. I could, however, make inquiries if my right hon. Friend desires it. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) asks me whether the response to the Loan is satisfactory. It is a larger sum than I was advised that I could get. If I am asked whether it fulfils all my hopes, well, sometimes I am unduly sanguine. When you take into account, as I did in the statement that I made just now, the fact that this is not the only Loan this year but that the calendar year from January includes the last months of the previous War Loan campaign and the tremendous whip-up that was then made, and further when you take into account the issues of War Bonds and of War Savings Certificates, then, I think, the response is
satisfactory. I do not contemplate issuing any new loan at present. If my right hon. Friend means, "Will any new Loan ever be issued," he is asking me a question that really is not capable of a satisfactory answer. I am not contemplating anything at present. When shall I contemplate something? I cannot say. I must be governed by the circumstances of the time.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I would congratulate him and his permanent -officials on the excellent campaign and the wonderful organisation in connection with the Loan. Under all the circumstances, the response was very good indeed. We are faced now with an extraordinarily complicated and difficult financial position which is not understood in the country. My right hon. Friend below me (Sir D. Maciean) made a few remarks on the subject of inflation, and the question is most serious. Practically, the whole of our trouble can be traced to the unavoidable; inflation of currency at the present-moment. I have put down two questions on policy with regard to this matter. Those questions were put with the intention of assisting in any way that I could to draw attention to this very serious matter. The general public do not understand the situation. I do ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take us into his confidence as soon as his experts have advised on the policy which they think is for the general good of the country, and to tell us what steps it is proposed to take with reference to this question, because in my opinion heroic steps will have to be taken. We shall either have to stop the issue of further notes, which may mean considerable loss to business men, or we shall have to have very much heavier taxation in order to reduce the floating debt. That being the ease, it is necessary to educate the people beforehand, and I urge the right hon. Gentleman to let us know exactly what is the policy of the Government and what his experts are proposing with regard to the matter. We find ourselves faced with the necessity of paying £400,000,000 yearly interest on loan. This country as at present constituted cannot stand it, and the future financial policy of the country will have to be radically changed. I am sure that in every part of the House the Chancellor of the Exchequer will receive the utmost sympathy and assistance if he will tell us what the policy is going to be, and, by doing so, be will begin the necessary, though pos-
sibiy painful, education of the country in our financial position and in the necessary remedies.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — GOVERNMENT OF THE SOUDAN LOAN BILL.

Considered in Committee, and repotted, without Amendment; to be read the third time upon Friday.

Orders of the Day — MERCHANT SHIPPING (WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY) BILL [Lords].

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

CLAUSE 1—(Wireless Telegraphy Requirements.)

(1) Every seagoing British ship registered in the United Kingdom being a passenger steamer or a ship of sixteen hundred tons gross tonnage or upwards shall be provided with a wireless telegraph installation and shall maintain a wireless telegraph service which shall be at least sufficient to comply with the rules made for the purpose under this Act, and shall be provided with one or more certified operators and watchers, at least, in accordance with those rules:

Provided that the Board of Trade may exempt from the obligations imposed by this Act any ships or classes of ships if they are of opinion that, having regard to the nature of the voyages on which the ships are engaged, or other circumstances of the case, the provision-of a wireless telegraph apparatus is unnecessary or unreasonable.

Mr. CHADWICK: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "seagoing."
Before coming to the subject of my Amendment, I would ask the House to realise that the object of this Bill is to increase the safety of life at sea. Hitherto, our legislators have not thought it necessary to go beyond providing a man with the means of keeping himself afloat after he gets into the water, but this Bill gives him the means of providing himself with another ship. I would ask hon. Members to keep in mind two main factors with regard to wireless on board ship, namely, the ability to call for help and the ability to hear a call for help. There is no need for me to insist on the immense significance of those two vital factors. I am sure the House will share my view that
the service of wireless telegraphy must be brought to the use of our seamen to the widest possible extent. There are difficulties of expense and of organisation, but those difficulties can be and must be overcome. I have affirmed repeatedly in this House, in Committee, and in the Press that these difficulties can be overcome, and I have used, as an illustration, the case of the aeroplane. if an aerial pilot flying his machine under the most difficult conditions of nerve strain, and, possibly, fighting, if he, comparatively untrained in the use of wireless telegraphy, can exchange messages with his gums of his base with the accuracy required by the exigencies of war, then it is comparatively child's play for the operation to be carried out on board any ship under any conditions. I was very relieved to see in to-day's "Times" a remarkable statement by no less a person than Mr. Godfrey Isaacs, the manager of the Marconi Company. I would ask the House to bear in mind the great and unreasonable objection raised by shipowners on the ground of cost. He says:
There can be no question, I think, that wireless would lend considerable safety at sea if all ships were so equipped, so that even small boats within a radius of from SO to 100 miles could be summoned to render assistance in case of need. There can be 1:0 better evidence of this than the case of the 'Titanic'
Just think of the "Titanic" not being able to call up ships passing within ten miles of her. They had nothing on which to put the passengers, and 1,400 people in a ship that took three hours to sink in a smooth sea were drowned—
This expense could be avoided" —
The expense of the operator—
if one of the ship's officers went through a short course of instruction. It would not be necessary for any watch to be kept, and his services would only be required in cases of distress. The apparatus could be so constructed as to respond only to the S.O.S. call, which would cause a bell to ring and so summon attention. Such an installation could be installed upon a ship and maintained at the cost of £60
That is a very remarkable statement, and to me a very encouraging statement. I never believed that they would go so far. It is a statement made deliberately and repeatedly by the greatest wireless authority that I know—the Marconi Company. It seems to me that it disposes completely and finally of any objection on the ground of cost. If there are still those who object on the ground of that
small cost of £60 a year, I would just mention one item on the other side of the account. It is generally admitted—the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade has admitted it—that if wireless is generally used on ships it. will reduce the mortality of ships, and, if I know anything about insurance, that will reduce the premiums for insurance. Take a ship of five, six, or seven hundred tons and put her value at £20,000. Her insurance, probably is £0 per cent. per annum. If the reduced mortality brought about a reduction in the insurance premiums of only one-half per cent, per annum, it would be £100 on £20,000, and that would wipe out the whole cost of wireless. That, however, is only one item; there are many others that I could mention.
With regard to my proposal to omit the word "seagoing" from this Clause, I moved this in Committee, but I want the Amendment to have a much more searching test than was possible in a Committee in which only twenty-six or twenty-seven members out of a total of seventy were present. The matter was galloped through in a couple of hours, and then it was only lost by one vote. I think 1 can get a better test of the Amendment this afternoon. If the word "seagoing" remains in this Bill there will be a large number of ships, carrying thousands of passengers round our coast, which will not come within the scope of the Bill. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade has told us that there is no definite meaning to the expression "seagoing." He said:
I do not think it is a term actually used in any Act of Parliament, but it is generally understood to exclude vessels paying in smooth or partially smooth waters.
I contend that every passenger ship should be brought within the scope of this Bill. Under the terms of the next paragraph in the Bill, the Board of Trade have the power to exempt certain classes of ships, but 1 say that every passenger ship should be brought within the scope of this Bill unless she can show either that she is a ferry boat or that under no circumstances would wireless be useful to her in an emergency. Imagine what might happen at any moment on the Clyde, on the Thames, in the Bristol Channel, in the case of these services of fast boats, very lightly built, carrying thousands of people over smooth or partially smooth water, under which definition they would not come within the scope of this Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Sir W. Raoburn), whose opinion I always value as one of the most experienced and leading shipping men in the country, particularly on the Clyde, made I last Friday in the Committee a most illuminating contribution to the discussion on this very subject. He said:
Take vessels like the 'Columba,' the 'King Edward,' and also the Clyde dredgers which go out to sea as far as Gairroch Head. All of these, unless they were exempted by the Board of Trade, would have to he fitted with wireless. But think of the Culumba,' with l,500 souls on board !
I ask the House to note this and to bear in mind that the hon. Member was resisting my Amendment. He went on to say:
 if that vessel met with any accident that needed wireless, every soal would be at the bottom of the sea unless the rafts and lifebelts saved them. Where would you get wifeless to by of any use?…
You cannot possibly have lifeboats for a ship of that kind you must have lifebelts.
The hon. Member wishes to deprive these very people, whose only means of safety, he says, is a lifebelt, of the means of announcing their distress to the world and calling up any possible assistance that might be within reach. I consider that in passing this Bill as it stands, with the word "seagoing" in it, we have a most solemn responsibility, especially after the announcement that I have quoted to the House from the Marconi Company—a deliberate official announcement made by the greatest wireless authority in the world. They tell you that they can put on board your ship an instrument that will respond to an emergency call by ringing a bell, and will do away with the necessity of having an operator always listening in, and that the ship can receive a call in that way, and would merely require an officer who had passed through a course of training in wireless telegraphy.

Mr. STURROCK: I have great pleasure in seconding the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow. I do so because I sincerely feel that, if this Amendment, and the other Amendments which follow in the sequel, are adopted, this measure is going to be as important to the future of life at sea as was the Plimsoll mark, which caused so much controversy in the days when it was fought in this House, and which met with exactly the same sort of opposition which I venture to say is manifested by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton. All that is proposed here is to make it obligatory upon vessels, whether plying
on the deep seas or in the waterways of the country, to carry wireless, so that they may summon to their assistance any vessel which may be in the near neighbourhood. It is said that this is carrying the idea to a ridiculous extent. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) said the other day in Committee that the Amendments on the Paper would compel tugs and trawlers, and craft of that type, to carry wireless, and, he asked, was there ever a more ridiculous idea than that? I have no doubt that my hon. and gallant Friend knows a good deal more about the sea than I do. but I do submit that this is a matter upon which either a landsman or a seaman may equally take a definite stand. If a large vessel such as the "Titanic'' is lying wounded at sea as the result of some disaster, and you are going to say that you will not have tugs and trawlers and other small craft fitted with wireless because they have only a few people on board, you are going to rule them out of the possibility of going to the aid of a large wounded liner which may be sinking rapidly within a few miles of where they are steaming quietly along, quite unconscious of the tragedy. I read the other day a statement which 1 venture to quote in proof of what my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow is standing for, in the official log of the "R34" on her return journey from America, on the voyage which is historic in our annals and which happily ended safely, but which might just as conceivably have ended otherwise in the Atlantic. In the log of the "R34" it is mentioned by the commanding officer that at one difficult point in the journey, when the navigators did not know where they were, they sighted two trawlers, and endeavoured to get into communication with them; but the log says, "As they were not fitted with wireless we got no response." I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton and others who are opposing this very fair and reasonable proposal, to indulge in a slight flight of imagination and try to realise that this matter of the universal installation of wireless is not only going to relate in years to come to scacraft, but is going to be of the utmost importance from the point of view of the development of air services here, there, and everywhere. I regard it as of the greatest importance that every vessel which goes to sea, no matter what her tonnage may be, or whether she plys on the deep sea or in
waterways, should be fitted with such an installation as will render her able, even though she does not have the widest possible scope, anyhow to pick up a message from any vessel which may be in danger in the near neighbourhood.
My hon. Friend has referred to the letter which appears in the Press to-day with regard to the question of the cost of a Marconi installation. I submit that in this House we have not only got to look at the question from the point of view of costs. I confess that I have the utmost sympathy with shipowners like my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton. We know how they have suffered from the' War in every way possible, and 1 am sure we extend a deep measure of sympathy to them. But when they come before us here or in Committee and say that by insisting on this humane proposal we are going to drive them into bankruptcy, all I can say is that 1 almost wish I could share their financial plight. [Laughter.] I do submit that we should support this proposal, which is really a businesslike proposal, and should say that we will do whatever lies in our power through the agency of this House to save life at sea. Hon. Gentlemen say that you cannot do it because you put too great a burden on the shipowner. I think the letter of Mr. Godfrey Isaacs in to-day's "Times" is a sufficient answer to that. I do feel that, standing as we are on the morrow of the great War, after we have said everything that wa3 kind and indulgent and appreciative of our seamen, whether of the Navy or of the Mercantile Marine, the points embodied in this and the other Amendments on the Paper are going to put to the acid test our sincerity in all those professions. I submit to the House most earnestly that, having in view the debt we owe to every man who has gone to sea during the trying course of the War—crews coming ashore one day from the lifeboats of their shipwrecked vessels and re-engaging next day to go back to sea again—if we are going to supplement in a sincere way all the professions of gratitude we have made to our seamen, we ought to accept this Amendment, and so do more than I believe has been done since the Plimsoll Mark was agreed to, to secure the safety not only of our sailors but of all those who go down to the sea in ships

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Lieut.-Colonel Leslie Wilson): I am sure
the House will agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow in saying that the object of this Bill should be to bring the services of wireless telegraphy to the use of seamen in the widest possible sense. The Government fully agrees with that view, but they cannot accept the Amendment which the hon. Member has moved, and I will give what I believe to be really solid reasons why they cannot do so. I should like to refer to the letter which my hon. Friend quoted from the "Times" of this morning, signed by Mr. Godfrey Isaacs, than whom no one has the right to speak with greater authority on questions relating to wireless telegraphy. My hon. Friend suggests that this docs away practically with any argument in reference to the cost of it wireless installation in any ship. But I should like to point out to him that Mr. Godfrey Isaacs' letter does not state any way in which such an installation could be put in at a cost of £60. He says:
Such an installation could, I think, be installed upon a ship and maintained at a cost of about £60 a year…such an annual expenditure would not, I think, be a burden upon any owner.
At the present time this low estimate is based on the assumption that there will be an efficient automatic calling device, and that it will not be necessary to have any person in attendance. In the second place, if an automatic device of a simple kind has been invented, certainly it will simplify the problem. But up to the present the Government Department concerned has no information that a satisfactory calling device has been produced. With reference to a further remark made in that letter, and alluded to by my hon. Friend, in which Mr. Isaacs said:
This expense—
that is. the cost of wirless equipment on board ship, and the necessity of expert wireless operators—
This expense could be avoided if one of the ship's officers went through a short course of instruction.
it sounds very easy, but. in the first place, I understand that the shortest possible course of instruction to be of any value at all must be at least three months; and, m the second place, I speak with knowledge when I say there would be considerable opposition to these dual duties being placed on ships' officers, and I think that is a consideration which has to be taken into view when this problem is being considered.
Coming to the Amendment, I think there is a considerable amount of misunderstanding as to what the word "seagoing" actually means. It is quite true that there is no statutory definition of the word "seagoing, "but it is a term which is clearly understood and generally accepted by every owner, by every officer, and, I believe, by every man in the Mercantile Service. May I speak from my own practical experience, which, after all, is useful? It has been part of my duty to deal with the question of wages of the merchant service, as chairman of the National Maritime Board, and in that connection we have to fix the standard rate of wages of seagoing ships, and for ships plying in smooth or partially smooth waters. I can assure the House that there is never any dispute as to where you should draw the line. It is clearly understood, and it is laid down in some cases what arc the seagoing snips and what are the ships which ply in smooth and partially smooth waters. I will take some concrete instances which I think will satisfy my hon. Friend. Take the case of the Clyde. In the Clyde, the smooth water limits mean within a line from Skipness Point round the Isle of Bute, but a ship that went as far as Ardrossan would go outside those limits, and would have to be fitted with wireless, or even if going from Ardrossan to Arran. But my hon. Friend would seem to think that any ship plying on Loch Lomond should have wireless.

Mr. STURROCK: You would have the power of exemption.

Colonel WILSON: But it is surely unnecessary. Take the case of the Mersey. Any passenger vessel which, in winter, goes beyond the Rock Lighthouse would have to be fitted with wireless. In the case of the Thames, any steamer going beyond Walton on one side or Margate on the other would have to be fitted with wireless. The effect of this Amendment really would be to extend the Bill to passenger steamers which ply entirely in smooth and partially smooth waters.

Sir E. CARSON: Will it apply to coasting steamers?

Colonel WILSON: That all depends whether they ply in smooth or partially smooth waters.

Sir E. CARSON: How do you know whether the water is smooth?

Mr. SEXTON: Take, for instance, the waters of the Atlantic just off Ireland.

Mr. STURROCK: Surely the words
Provided that the Board of Trade may exempt from the obligations imposed by this Act any ships or classes of ships.
cover the case of which the hon. and gallant Gentleman speaks!

Colonel WILSON: It is perfectly possible, of course, for the word to be omitted, but I suggest to the House that the Amendment is quite unnecessary. It would throw an enormous amount of work on the Board of Trade. Every ship plying in smooth or partially smooth waters would have to be exempted under this proviso in the Bill. It is, if I may say so. an unreasonable Amendment, because I do not understand what advantage would be gained by it. it would put another burden on the coasting trade in smooth waters, and I am sure the House agrees that at the present time the last thing we want to do is to put any additional burdens on the coasting trade, which is suffering under burdens already. We are most anxious to restore the coasting trade to work it did in pre-war days, and, if any extra burdens are added, it will be a very serious handicap bringing that trade to its pre-war service. My hon. Friend who spoke last spoke as if this Amendment would be opposed entirely by the shipowners on the ground of cost. I am in no way defending the shipowners, but there is no objection on the part of the shipowners on the question of cost. They are quite ready to meet any cost which may be necessary, if they think it reasonable or if life will be saved by the instalment of wireless on these ships; but I do maintain that it is not reasonable to insist upon the instalment of wireless on ships which ply absolutely within smooth or partially smooth waters, which are never out of sight of land, and the instalment of wireless on which would' not, I am convinced, save one single life at any time. As I say, these ships must always be in sight of land. [An HON. MEMBER: "In a fog?"] Of course, they would not be in sight of land in a fog, but, even if they were in a fog, would they be assisted if they had wireless? If they are absolutely in sight of land, or close to the land, they will always get assistance from the coast—from lifeboats or other means. Therefore, I do ask the House to reject this Amendment, as I believe it is unnecessary, and I can almost say unreasonable.

Lieut. Commander KENWORTHY: After the very plain and straightforward speech from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Shipping, I hope my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] First of all, let me ask the House not to be swayed by the "Titanic" disaster. Unfortunately, the "Titanic" relied too much on her wireless, and if she had used the old-fashioned minute-gun the ship which was within ten miles would have been called. I am as alive as anyone to the great advantages and uses in the future of wireless telegraphy, but the thing can be carried a little too far. This Amendment must be considered in connection with another Amendment lower down in the names of the same lion. Members and another hon. Member (Mr. Sexton), in which they wish to reduce the size of the ship to be fitted with wireless to 500 tons.

Mr. CHADWICK: Is there any relationship between the two Amendments'?

Mr. SPEAKER: I think there is. I do | not see any objection to pointing out where the House may be landed if it accepts both Amendments.

Lieut. Commander KENWORTHY: I would ask the House to remember the reference which has been made to R. 34 communicating with trawlers by wireless. If every fishing vessel has to have wireless, I can see very considerable difficulty. In trawlers it is necessary to economise the personnel to the utmost. At the present moment there is a very unfortunate strike going on on the North-East coast among the fishing trawlers as to whether they shall carry an extra trimmer for the long Icelandic voyage. It must be observed that the Bill says that "passenger steamer" shall mean a steamer carrying more than twelve passengers, which is no doubt right and proper; but if we cut out the word seagoing, one result will be that any penny steamer running past this honourable House will be required to have wireless. The thing is absurd; we must be practical. I am as great a believer in wireless, and probably know as much about it as anyone in this House, but I must resist the Amendment. Coasters running between Newcastle and Leith are certainly seagoing vessels, and will come under the Bill, but this would hamper every vessel plying in the inland waters, and, as has been pointed out, it is most
necessary that their trade should be revived. Certainly the Board of Trade can exempt them, but that means more officials, more inspectors, more harassing and hampering of the seafaring man who happens to be serving on a vessel plying on an estuary or river. He would need to have a licence exempting him from wireless, which would have to be vised by numerous officials. Life would be hardly worth living—it is hardly worth living now. And really, from the practical point of view, I hope the Committee will not accept this Amendment, and will not pay too much attention to that wireless expert, Mr. Godfrey Isaacs, who naturally is interested, and who would like to see wireles fitted by law to every Thames tug.

Sir W. RAEBURN: I do not think I would have risen had I not been challenged by my hon. Friend. I desire to say only a single word about the suggested opposition of the shipowners. Wherever wireless is of any use I do not know of any shipowner who would begrudge the expense. But what is the use of going to the expense of putting in an installation if it is going to be futile? Take the case of the River Clyde. I think the hon. Member for Barrow had better come down and make the acquaintance of that river. Take vessels like the "Columba," the "King Edward," and other vessels of that typo which are plying in waters within a mile or so of the shore. Imagine something going wrong. This would all be in sight of the shore. There are all the other boats like the railway cross-channel and similar steamers which make a run of twenty minutes or thereabouts, or the vessels that ply on Loch Lomond, Lock Katrine, and so on. Is it really proposed to make shipowners use wireless for these places? My hon. Friend is entirely misinterpreting my arguments about lifeboats and life-rafts. What I meant to say was that the vessels to which I have referred ply on the waters of the Clyde in summer time, and they carry enormous numbers of passengers from Glasgow upwards. If wireless is to be of any use at all in the event of anything untoward happening, and in calling aid from a distance, the vessel must be able, or at any rate, presumed to be able, to keep afloat for some little time or else she must have lifeboats of some other means of preserving the lives of her passengers. If a vessel like the "Columba" was in collision, say, and
did use her wireless, everyone on board would have a fair chance of being drowned before any aid arrived. That is, if that aid had to be called apart from the observation of any vessels near at hand. How on earth could aid arrive before everyone was drowned?

Mr. CHADWICK: I do not want to take the lifeboats or the lifebelts out of these steamers.

Sir W. RAEBURN: It is the extreme of sentimentality. In respect to the "Titanic," of which mention has been made, if my memory has not failed me, there was a ship near which could have rendered aid had it not been that the wireless operator was not in his cabin at the time the message came. But somewhat of a change has come over the scene to-day. A different sort of installation altogether is advocated. So far, however, as I can make out, the installation proposed is not one that the Board of Trade will pass. It is a strange thing that Mr. Godfrey Isaacs should now write a letter to the "Times" when the Chamber of Shipping and the Liverpool Shipowners' Association have been negotiating for over twelve months for a cheaper installation. If it could be proved that wireless fitted in these vessels would save life, the cost would be a secondary consideration in every man's mind. But when you are convinced, as I am, to the contrary in the case of vessels plying in calm waters, I say it is going to bring the whole idea into discredit. Put the installation where it will be useful, but do not spoil your case by having it fitted where it is of no particular use.
With respect to the argument relating to the expense, my hon. Friend says it could be saved on the insurance. I should like him to tell me of any underwriter who will give one single copper of rebate for insurance because a wireless installation has been fitted on board. I was speaking today, in the precincts of this House, to a well-known underwriter at Lloyd's. I said, "When you heard the hon. Member for Barrow making that statement, 1 am surprised that you, whose firm has time and again refused to give any rebate, did not get up and contradict it." The excuse my hon. Friend gave was that he did not think underwriters should intervene. Do not let us run away with the fallacy that this is a matter of pounds, shillings, and pence, or that, because this will cost money, that we are hiding from those who are opposed to
us the fact that we can get such a rebate on our insurance premiums as will cover the whole cost. Then as to saving property. We will have wireless on to save life, but I do not see how it is going to save much in the way of property. Again, supposing the vessel fitted with wireless was in collision. She might be dismasted, and down would come the aerial, and your wireless would be of no avail.

Mr. SEXTON: Not necessarily.

Sir W. RAEBURN: Oh, yes. The hon. Member gave an instance of the boats taking people away on holiday trips, and suggesting that such boats would be exempt under the Board of Trade Regulations, seeing they plied in comparatively calm water. But applications for exemption to the Board of Trade or other Government Departments might probably be so prolonged that the holidays would be over before the exemption could be obtained. Generally, we are quite agreed as to the use and necessity for wireless in all cases where it may be properly fitted, but, as I said, do not let us spoil our case by putting wireless into vessels which are never in any danger, and making them apply to a Government Department for exemption, perhaps to be treated unreasonably, as sometimes we find to be the case.

Mr. SEXTON: I have listened to the very ingenious defence of the right lion. Gentleman opposite. The hon. and gallant Member for Hull also has tried to throw ridicule upon this Amendment. Comparatively smooth water has been mentioned. What is meant by that? The hon. Gentleman mentioned that the installation of wireless telegraphy on coasters would be a great burden to the coasting trade? What does he moan by the coasting trade? There are some coasters which voyage about the coast and are never out of sight of land, where there is just as big a sea—I have seen it and experienced it as there is in any part of the Atlantic Ocean. Let me give cases in point,. Would the hon. Gentleman say that a journey from the Mersey to Llan-dnddno was in smooth water or otherwise? Would he say that a voyage from Liverpool to Portsmouth, thence to London, was in smooth water, although land is in sight practically all the time? You are only two or three miles from land, but you may be in a perpetual fog.

Sir W. RAEBURN: These vessels are seagoing vessels.

Mr. SEXTON: I want to be sure of that. As to comparatively smooth water, around the whole of the Anglesey coast and outside the bar of the Mersey, I have seen tall water there—as big as any I have seen even off the South Stack, Holyhead. As to the question of saving life by lifeboat stations, surely the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members are aware that there are hundreds of places on our coasts to-day where it is impossible to get lifeboat service; places where there is no lifeboat and where it is not possible to establish it. I say that the arguments put forward are very ingenious, but they are met by the fact that there is a Clause in the Bill that gives the Board of Trade power to exempt any vessel that they think does not require to carry this installation. That, in itself, surely ought to be a sufficient safeguard and meet all the obstacles that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen wish to place in our way. My one point is this: that such apparatus is in existence, no opportunity ought to be lost of generally making things safer.

5.0.P.M.

Mr. LINDSAY: This particular question was debated very thoroughly in -Committee, and very little more has been said to-day in support of it. I do not think it is realised what this Amendment means. It would make every passenger vessel, no matter what size, come inside the scope of this Bill. Obviously, to bring steamers that ply on the Thames, and even the boats that pass here, inside the scope of this Bill is an absurdity. I am. however, thinking more particularly of boats dealing with a small class of traffic in Ireland, such as those that ply on the Shannon, the Foyle, and similar waters. and to impose this condition in such cases would be a great inconvenience. With regard to the position of the Board of Trade, I do not think hon. Members can have road a letter in the "Times" of 16th July, by Lord Emmott, in which it was pointed out that the prevailing characteristic of Government officials was timidity. Under this proposal, if a question arises as to whether some vessels should or should not be, exempt, the official of the Board of Trade will always play for safety, because if he happened to be wrong he would be criticised. It would not matter to him whether he imposed an unfair burden on shipowners or not.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: I think on the whole the hon. and gallant Gentleman
who represents the Government in this matter has made out a good case for the retention of the word "seagoing." I wish, however, to ask him a, question. He said that everyone understood exactly what seagoing meant, and he referred to the Maritime Transport Committee, of which he was the chairman, and on which he said there never was any difficulty about finding out the meaning of seagoing. I would like to ask him if there is any legal definition of the word "seagoing"?

Colonel WILSON: I said that there is no statutory definition of the. word "seagoing."

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: There appears to be a difference of opinion as to what smooth and partially smooth waters are, and as to what seagoing really means. As far as I can see, if this word is left in, it will lead to endless litigation, and I am not going to vote for anything that will lead to further litigation. We are rushing measures through this House at such a rate that they are not being properly considered, and I am sure the legislation which has gone through Parliament this year will lead to a crop of cases in the Courts in future years. I think that is an important point, and I hope the Government will he able to give me some answer on the point I have raised. I trust other hon. Members will be prepared to vote for the omission of the word "seagoing" from this Clause.

Mr. RENWICK: I think the hon. Member's statement about the safety of these vessels is fully met by the Board of Trade certificate. Certain passenger vessels receive a certificate that they are not to go outside the estuary, while others are given what are called seagoing certificates. It is distinctly recognised that there are two classes of licences for steamers to carry passengers in certain waters.

Colonel WILSON: I said there was no statutory definition of the word "seagoing," and that is strictly correct; but as regards seagoing vessels, it has been laid down very clearly by the Board of Trade under what limits they are to be allowed to sail. All this information is laid down in the regulations and instructions as to the certifying of passenger steamers, which give a list of places round the coast of the United Kingdom of those areas which come under smooth water limits, and, consequently, there can be no question of any litigation in regard to
this matter, because the point has been laid down quite clearly. I gave only one or two instances, and I cannot attempt to deal with every smooth water limit round the coast of England, Scotland, and Ireland. There is no fear of litigation arising from this proposal, and in all these cases the word may be interpreted literally as smooth or partially smooth waters, and all those cases quoted by my

hon. Friends opposite would naturally be seagoing boats, and would be installed with wireless, and no boats which go outside the smooth or partially smooth waters limit would be without wireless.

Question put, "That the word 'seagoing stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 229; Noes,. 55.

Division No. 81.
AYES.
[5.10 p.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral
Dockrell, Sir M.
McMicking. Major Gilbert


Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.
Donald, T.
Macquisten, F. A.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Duncannon, Viscount
Maddocks, Henry


Ainsworth, Captain C.
Du Pre, Colonel W. B.
Mallalieu, Frederick William


Amery, Lieut.-Colonel L. c. M. s.
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Marriott, John Arthur R.


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Entwistle, Major C.
Martin, A. E.


Armitage, Robert
Eyres-Monsell, Commander
Mason, Robert


Astor, Major Hon. Waldorf
Falcon, Captain M.
Matthews, David


Baldwin, Stanley
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Mildmay, Col. Rt. Hon. Francis B.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Fell, Sir Arthur
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz


Balfour, Sir Robert (Partick)
Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G
Foxcroft, Captain C.
Morison, T. B. (Inverness)


Barker, Major R.
France, Gerald Ashburner
Morrison, H. (Salisbury)


Barnett, Captain Richard W.
Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir A. C. (Basingstoke)
Mosley, Oswald


Barnston, Major Harry
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Mount, William Arthur


Barrand, A. R.
Gilbert, James Daniel
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Gllmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Murray, Lt -Col. Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen).


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Glyn, Major R.
Murray, Major C. D. (Edinburgh, S.)


Benn, Sir Arthur S. (Plymouth)
Grant, James Augustus
Murray, Hon. G. (St. Rollox)


Bennett, T. J.
Greame, Major P. Lloyd
Murray, John (Leeds, W.)


Bird, Alfred
Green, A. (Derby)
Murray, William (Dumfries)


Blair, Major Reginald
Greenwood, Col. Sir Hamar
Nall, Major Joseph


Blake. Sir Francis Douglas
Greig, Colonel James William
Neal, Arthur


Berwick, Major G. 0.
Gretton, Colonel John
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter)


Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith-
Griggs, Sir Peter
Nicholson, R. (Doncaster)


Bowles, Col. H. F.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Nield, Sir Herbert


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Guinness, Capt. Hon. (Southend)
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.


Brackenbury, Captain H. L.
Guinness, Lt.-Col. Hon. W. E. (B. St. E.)
Oman, C. W. C.


Bramsdon, Sir T.
Hacking, Captain D. H.
Palmer, Major G. M. (Jarrow)


Breese, Major C. E.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir Fred. (Dulwich)
Palmer, Brig.-Gen. G. (Westoury)


Briant, F.
Hamilton, Major C. G. C. (Attrincham)
Parker, James


Bridgeman, William clive
Hanson, Sir Charles
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike


Britton, G. B.
Harris, Sir H. P. (Paddington, S.)
Perkins, Walter Frank


Bull, Right Hon. Sir William James
Haslam. Lewis
Philipps, Sir 0. C. (Chester)


Burn, Colonel C. R. (Torquay)
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Campbell, J. G. D.
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Pratt, John William


Campion, Colonel W. R.
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. (Midlothian)
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.


Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred
Hope, John Deans (Berwick)
purchase, H. G.


Carr, W. T.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Rae, H. Norman


Carter, R. A. D. (Manchester)
Hopkinson, Austin (Mossley)
Raeburn, Sir William


Casey, T. W.
Horne, Sir Robert (Hillhead)
Ratcliffe, Henry Butler


Cautley, Henry Strother
Howard, Major S. G.
Raw, Lieut.-Colonel Dr. N.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)
Hughes, Spencer Leigh
Rees, Captain. J. Tudor (Barnstaple)


Chamberlain, N (Birm., Ladywood)
Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A, G.
Remnant, Col. Sir J. Farquharson


Cheyne, Sir William Watson
Inskip, T. W. H.
Renwick, G.


Clay, Captain H. H. Spender
Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York)
Richardson, Alex. (Gravesend)


Clough, R.
Jameson, Major J. G.
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Coats, Sir Stuart
Jesson, C.
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Jodrell. N. P.
Robinson. T. Stretford, Lancs.)


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Johnstone, J.
Rodger, A. K.


Cohen, Major J. B. B.
Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Rogers, Sir Hallewell


Colfox, Major W. P.
Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)
Rowlands, James


Colvin, Brigadier-General R. B.
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander
Royds, Lt.-Col. Edmund


Cope, Major W. (Glamorgan)
Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr
Rutherford, Col Sir J. (Darwen)


Courthope, Major George Loyd
Kidd, James
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Norwood)


Craig, Lt.-Com. N. (Isle of Thanet)
King, Commander Douglas
Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur


Craik, Right Hon. Sir Henry
Kinloch-Cooke. Sir Clement
Scott, A. M. (Glas., Bridgeton)


Curzon, Commander Viscount
Knights, Captain H.
Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone)


Dalziel, Sir Davison (Brixton)
Law, A. J. (Rochdale)
Seager, Sir William


Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirk'dy)
Law, Right Hon. A. Bonar (Glasgow)
Seely, Maj.-Gen. Rt. Hon. John


Davidson, Major-Gen. Sir John H.
Lewis, T. A. (Pontypridd. Glam.)
Shaw, Hon. A. (Kilmarnock)


Davies, Major David (Montgomery Co.)
Lindsay, William Arthur
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T., W.)


Davies, Sir D. S. (Denbigh)
Lloyd, George Butler
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Davies, Sir Joseph (Crewe)
Lorden, John William
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville


Davies, T. (Cirencester)
Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)
Stanley. Colonel Hon. G. F. (Preston)


Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)
M' Donald, Dr. B. F. P. (Wallasey)
Steel, Major S. Strang


Dawes, J. A.
M'Guffin. Samuel
Stephenson. Colonel H. K.


Dennis, J. W.
Macmaster, Donald
Stevens, Marshall


Strauss, Edward Anthony
Walker, Colonel William Hall
Williams, A. (Conset, Durham)


Sugden, W. H.
Ward, Colonel L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)
Wilson, Colonel Leslie (Reading)


Sutherland, Sir William
Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
Wood, Sir H. K (Woolwich, W.)


Sykes, Sir C. (Huddersfield)
Waring, Major Walter
Wood, Major Mackenzie (Aberdeen, C.)


Thomas, Sir R. (Wrexham, Denb.)
Watson, Captain John Bertrand
Yea, Sir Alfred William


Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)
Weston, Colonel John W.
Young, William (Perth and Kinross)


Townley, Maximilan G.
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)



Tryon, Major George Clement
Whitla, Sir William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord E.


Turton, Edmund Russborough
Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.
Talbot and Captain F. Guest.


Waddington, R.




NOES.


Arnold, Sydney
Griffiths, T. (Pontypool)
Short, A. (Wednesbury)


Atkey, A. R.
Grundy, T. W.
Simm, Colonel M. T.


Banner, Sir J. S. Harmood-
Guest, J. (Hemsworth. York)
Sitch, C. H.


Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Hayward, Major Evan
Smith. W (Wellingborough)


Brown, J. (Ayr and Bute)
Hirst, G. H.
Spencer, George A.


Buckley, Lt.-Col. A.
Holmes, J. S.
Spoor, E. G.


Cairns, John
Kelly, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Stanton, Charles Butt


Caps, Tom
Kenyon, Barnet
Sturrock, J. Leng-


Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Swan, J. E. C.


Carter, W. (Mansfield)
Malone, Col. C. L. (Leyton, E.)
Thomas, Brig,-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Newbould, A. E.
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Crooks, Rt. Hon. William
Onions, Alfred
Thorne, G R. (Wolverhampton. E)


Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Tootill, Robert


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Randles, Sir John Scurrah
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Edwards, C. (Bedwellty)
Rapar. A. Baldwin
Wignall, James


Edwards, J. H. (Glam., Neath)
Randall, Athelstan
Wilson, w. T. (Westhoughton)


Elliot, Capt. W. E. (Lanark)
Roberts, F. O. (W. Bromwich)



Finney, Samuel
Rose, Frank H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Chadwick and Mr. Sexton.


Graham. W. (Edinburgh)
Royce, William stapleton



Green, J. F. (Leicester)




Resolutions agreed to.

Lieut. Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "sixteen hundred," and to insert instead thereof 'the words "one thousand."
The object of this Amendment is to reduce the size of the vessels to which the attachment of wireless will be compulsory from 1,600 tons to 1,000. This will exempt at the present moment. 461 British merchant steamers that are less than 1,600 tons and not less than 1,000 tons. It will exempt a great number of small vessels where the placing of the wireless apparatus and an operator would involve a great burden, in view of the competition with which our shipping will be faced in the near future. Where obviously wireless is useful for merchant purposes the shipowner, who is a pretty good business man, may well be trusted to fit it. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent it being fitted on even motor launches, if it is so desired. I think my Amendment, however, to reduce the limit from 1,600 to 1.000 tons is reasonable. I have consulted a very important organisation of the Merchant Service Officers, and they agree with me that a 1,000-ton limit would be better than 1,600 tons, as suggested by the Department.

Major ENTWISTLE: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir OWEN PHIL1PPS: It should be remembered that the cost of fitting the
wireless to small vessels is practically the same as in the. case of large vessels, and, therefore, the £700 a year or so that it will involve will be added for all time lo the running expenses of the small vessels, and will tell very heavily against them. We do not want to do anything at this time to penalise the owners of small vessels, in view of the fact that the whole country is now suffering because the number of small vessels has been so very greatly reduced during the War. Owners of small vessels even at the present time are discouraged from adding to their fleet by the mere expense of working them. They are in competition with railways, which arc carrying some 20,000,000 tons of cargo at the present time at the cost of the British taxpayer, and at less than proper freightage. At a time when this nation is spending this large amount of money on cargo freights over the railways at the cost of the taxpayers, it is very undesirable to do any thing to handicap the small vessels, which should be increasing in number in order to help to relieve the railways from the burden. I know it may be said—and, indeed, it has been said— that one foreign country at least—Spain—has made it compulsory to carry the wireless on vessels of less than 1,600 tons, but it is quite a different thing to enforce a Spanish order by moans of a British Act of Parliament. Even if the Spanish authothorities insisted on vessels of less than 1,600 tons being fitted with the wireless,
I do not think it would lead to much expenditure by the owners of small Spanish vessels. It has been said, and may again be asserted, that the French have done something to apply the wireless to vessels of less than 1,600 tons, but I understand that that information is not accurate. If later on it is found that other nations are prepared to make the owners of quite small vessels incur this heavy annual expense, then it will be ample tune for us to apply the same regulations here. In my opinion, however, it would be a pure waste of money, even from a life-saving point of view, to insist on these small vessels incurring this great annual expense, and therefore I hope the Government will not accept this Amendment.

Mr. SEXTON: I confess I have been unable to follow the argument of the last speaker. I want to point out to the House that if you retain the words "1,600" in the Bill you will practically exclude deep-sea sailing vessels, to which the wireless would be of as much importance, if, indeed, it would not be more important, than it is to vessels that have other pio-pelling forces than mere dependence on the weather. Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill that there are hundreds of sailing vessels to-day of under 1,600 tons that make voyages even round Cape Horn. Those who have any experience of that particular neighbourhood will, I think, agree with me—and I have had my share of experience there— that a sailing vessel which has no other propelling force than more dependence on weather requires this protection much more than the steamer, and certainly ought to be fitted with the apparatus, so that it may call to its aid in emergency any vessel within the radius of its call. There are deep-seagoing tubs to-day— floating dry-docks, they are called—running between this country and America, and will it be said that they are not entitled to have the same facilities as are enjoyed by other vessels which go on deep-sea voyages? I submit that if this Bill is carried in the way it is worded, deep-sea vessels, which are really more in want of this apparatus than ordinary steamships, would be excluded from the operation of the Bill, and 1 think it will be admitted by anyone who has practical knowledge of the sea that the vessels of which I am speaking ought, above all others, to come within the category of those it is proposed to apply this provision to.

Mr. CHADWICK: I did not quite catch what my hon. Friend opposite said just now with regard to the law in Spain, but I think I was responsible for the statement as to what other countries have done in this matter. I have some quotations here from the "Year Book of Wireless Telegraphy." In the first place, T find that in regard to Greek ships a law was passed in October, 1917, laying it down that Greek vessels of 300 tons dead-weight and cargo vessels of 1,000 tons dead-weight —which means probably a ship of 600 tons —must beequipped with wireless telegraphic apparatus possessing a range of 100 miles, and furnished with an emergency apparatus of not less than thirty miles range. I can make the same quotation from the law of Spain, where a Royal Decree was issued on the 20th February, 1917, providing that merchant ships of 500 tons and upwards which make long sea voyages or long coasting voyages must carry a wireless installation with an immediate range of 100 miles, as laid down in the international regulations. That is a quotation from a book published by the Marconi Company this year. What is all this hullabaloo about? We are asking that ships shall be equipped with an instrument which will cost, according to Mr. Godfrey Isaacs in the "Times" to-day, £60, and all our hands are held up in horror at the idea of saddling the poor shipowner with expense in that way. Before I was a shipowner I was a merchant sailor, and I am proud to be able to say that. To talk about £700 a year is the sheerest nonsense. If my hon. Friend tells me he is bound to do certain things according to the Merchant Shipping Act, and if the Merchant Shipping Act is wrong and this is right, then for heaven's sake let us put the Merchant Shipping Act right, but do not let us deprive the community of what is admittedly the greatest known life-saving medium at sea. I support the Amendment

Colonel LAMBERT WARD: One of the most potent arguments which it is possible to advance in favour of this alteration is that it may, under certain circumstances, save life, and, if that argument is proved, it is abolutely unanswerable. But I am assured by people who really know what they are talking about that the truth of that argument is extremely problematical. On the other hand, I think, in these days of constantly shrinking trade, the cost of installing wireless-tele-
graphy ought, at any rate, to be considered. The Amendment will bring within the scope of the Bill coasting steamers and others which, practically, never under any circumstances go out of sight of land. An hon. Member remarked that they would be out of sight of land in the event of a fog. But the only meteorological condition under which a fog is possible is a dead calm, and under those circumstances the crew would have lowered their boats and been safely ashore before any other ship could have picked up their S.O.S. So I do not consider they would have been any safer had their vessel been fitted with an expensive wire-Jess installation. What is the cost of this installation likely to be? I do not deal so much with the actual cost: of the installation itself; it is with the manning of it that I am principally concerned. The Rill says that at least one wireless operator must be carried, but I think, in the long run, it would be found that one was not sufficient and that at least two would be required. Wireless telegraphy is a very highly-skilled and technical calling. Not only must the operator be highly trained, but he must also be in constant practice, otherwise his ear loses its cunning. It is, therefore, out of the question to expect the donkey man or the second engineer to take also the duties of wireless operator, and it is almost equally out of the question to expect the wireless operator to take on the duties of donkey man during his spare time.
That being the case, it means, at least, two additional hands, and on a vessel of 1.000 tons, upon which the normal crew is, perhaps, sixteen to eighteen, the additional two will be a very considerable item. Not only that, but wireless operators are certainly highly paid. I very much doubt whether, in the immediate future, especially if wages continue in their upward tendency, it will be possible to obtain wireless operators at less than about £16 a month, with all found, which is the equivalent of, at least, £25 a month of civilian wages. The cost of one operator would be approximately £300 a year and the cost of two, which I believe is the absolute minimum for effective wireless communication to be maintained, is at least £600 to £700 a year. Any additional burden which we place upon the shipping of this country is bound to be reflected in the cost of food. The only means of bringing food to this country is by means of ships
If we put up the cost of running the ships. freights will go up. If freights go up the cost of food will go up in proportion. At this moment we art; absolutely at our wits end for some method of decreasing the cost of living. We are still subject to all kinds of vexatious control, although it is obvious that the attempt to control the price of food in this country is entirely dependent on our powers of controlling it at the source, which at present we do not possess. To place unnecessary and expensive restrictions upon shipping is bound in the long run to increase the cost of food, and of all commodities. Another point of view from which I should like the House to look at this, is that of the shipowner. In the opinion of many hon. Members he is a profiteer and a bloodsucker, and is not entitled to any consideration whatever. At the same time it is to the enterprise and knowledge of past generations of shipowners that this country owes its predominant position in the shipping trade which it occupied under pre-war conditions, and if we place too many restrictions upon the shipping trade it can only result in ships being sold or transferred to foreign flags. In that case the country stands to lose in every respect. The seafaring folk of this country will lose their employment because ships registered at Bergen or Hamburg will not employ Britishers but mixed crews of blacks, Dutchmen, and Dagoes, and the country will lose through the formation of shipping rings against this country, which it will be much easier for foreigners to form. In giving a very qualified blessing to this measure I ask the Government to reject this Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel WILSON: This Amendment was very luily disenssrd in Committee. I do not think the House fully realises that the Bill places an obligation on every seagoing passenger steamer, however small, to have wireless, and a passenger steamer is defined as one which carries twelve passengers or more. So we are not dealing, in this question of the reduction of tonnage, with passenger steamers, but simply with cargo tramp steamers. The Government would not hesitate for a moment to reduce the tonnage to 1,000 or to 500 if it was thought it would really be helpful in any way, either from a commercial point of view or from the point of view of assistance in saving life. The Bill draws the line at 1,600 tons because that is a well understood division between the ocean-going tramp and a ship which is not ocean-going. During the War
the number of vessels which have been fitted with wireless has increased from 1,000 to 2,700, and much the greater part if not the whole of this increase will be made permanent under this Bill. If we were to reduce the tonnage from 1,600 to 1,000 the number of ships affected would be as stated by my hon. and gallant Friend, but it would, aftr all, affect ships the very large majority of which are never at sea for more than thirty hours. Vessels under 1,600 tons are practically never at sea for more than thirty hours. They are mostly vessels engaged either in the coastal trade or across the North Sea, to the coast of France or down as far as the coast of Spain. It is not a paying proposition to send these smaller ships on long voyages, and it is now the practice that even the majority of colliers are about 3,000 tons or over. If either of these Amendments was accepted the ships which would be affected would be those which really are never at sea for any lengthy period. It would merely catch purely cargo ships which seldom incur danger requiring wireless. What are the dangers? If they are ships engaged in the coastal trade they are practically always within the three-mile limit. They would have assistance from the coast if they go ashore, and if they run the risk of going ashore wireless would be of little assistance to them, because no ship would go to their assistance. The assistance must come from the shore, from the lifeboat service, and so on. The only other danger which they might meet would be the danger of collision, and as a general rule one of the two ships colliding is not so seriously damaged that it cannot come to the assistance of the other. The hon. Member for Hull spoke about the cost of the upkeep. I have already said something about that, but I would add that if you are to have wireless installed on ships such as those suggested now, it is essential that if it is to be used to the fullest possible purpose there should be two operators, two full-time men who do nothing else but look after the wireless instruments. It is not merely the cost of installation on board the ship, but it is the cost of the wages of these two officers. If the Amendment was accepted, ships of 1,000 to 1,600 tons, which seldom are more than thirty hours at sea, would practically carry their wireless operators as passengers.
I would like to refer to a strong point I raised by the hon. Member for Barrow
(Mr. Chadwick), which was made upstairs and repeated to-day. It was also referred to by the hon. Member for Cheshire. I refer to the legislation in other countries. When the hon. Member for Barrow made this point upstairs I had to acknowledge that I had not the information as to legislation in other countries, but I promised that I would get it before the Report stage. I have made the fullest possible inquiries in the matter. In regard to Spain, an Order was made.

Colonel L. WARD: Does the hon. Member consider that the shipping trade of Spain is in such a flourishing condition that we can follow their example?

Colonel WILSON: No; I am not saying that. I am dealing with the question of legislation. An Order was made in February requiring all Spanish vessels of more than 500 tons to carry wireless installations. In France during the War vessels of 500 tons and over were under the obligation to be fitted with wireless, and all vessels so fitted have to maintain it. But if they have not been fitted during the War they will not be required to carry wireless unless they have passengers on board. In regard to Greece, we have endeavoured to make the fullest inquiries, but up to the present moment I have received no report. It is quite true that we do not base whatever we do on the Spanish mercantile marine; but at the same time we do not wish to be behind any country in any necessary steps they may take. I do ask the House to look at this matter from the point of view of practical considerations. If this Amendment is accepted it would be essential to use the proviso which is given in Clause 1. Sub-section (1). of the Bill, in order to exempt a very large majority of these ships between 1,000 tons and 1,600 tons. This Amendment would mean a very great and very heavy added burden on the smaller coastal vessels. We are not living in ordinary times now. Freights at the present moment are high, perhaps higher than we wish, but they are not going to remain high. Undoubtedly they are liable to fall. I will not prophesy when, but I hope soon. When they do fall these coastal vessels, which work on a very narrow margin, will be very severely handicapped by this added burden which is put upon small coastal cargo boats, and they will be under a very serious handicap in carrying on their trade. I ask the
House not to look at the immediate present when they see freights are high, but to look to the future when we shall have to meet very severe competition from the merchant service of the world, and when we shall have to cut our freights. Then, any additional burden which is put by this House upon these ships will be a great handicap. I believe we shall meet that competition successfully, but I view with great anxiety the putting of any burdens on the Mercantile Marine which one does not consider essential, and which to a large extent are not very reasonable. Therefore, I ask the House not to accept this Amendment, but to pass the Bill as it stands.

Captain STANLEY WILSON: This Amendment was moved by the hon. Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken worthy), but it is strongly opposed by the hon. Member for North-West Hull (Colonel L. Ward). Therefore, it is not very easy for the average Member of Parliament to decide what course to take; but it seems to me that the advice given by the hon. Member for North-West Hull was much stronger than the advice given by the hon. Member for Central Hull.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I was seconded by the hon. Member for East Hull.

Captain WILSON: Hull seems to be very divided on the question. However, the advice given by the hon. Member for North-West Hull was sounder than that given by the other hon. Members for Hull. I wonder whether those two hon. Members have consulted the shipping industry of Hull, which they are supposed to represent in this House. I was glad to hear the attitude of the Government on this matter, and I hope the hon. Members for Hull will not press the Amendment to a Division. It is unquestionable that it will add very heavily to the expenditure imposed on the shipping industry. If it was to be carried out it would be quite impossible to find enough operators in wireless to work on ships that would have to be fitted with wireless.

Amendment negatived.

Colonel WILSON: I beg to move
That the Bill be now read the third time.

Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

SUPPLY.

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1919–20.

Considered in Committee.

[The Deputy-Chairman, Sir EDWIN CORNWALL, in the Chair.]

COLONIAL OFFICE.

LIEUT-COLONEL AMERY'S STATEMENT.

Motion made, and Question proposed
That a sum, not exceeding £57,025, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty s Secretary of State for the Colonies, including a Grant for certain Expenses connected with Emigration."—[NOTE.—£37.000 has been voted on account.]

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I hope I shall have the indulgence of the Committee in my first attempt to deal with so vast and complicated a range of subjects as those which are covered by this Vote. In the limited time at the disposal of the Committee it will be hardly fair to hon. Members who have many points of importance to raise if I endeavoured to do so in any comprehensive or detailed fashion. I would rather, if I may, devote such time as I can reasonably take up to outlining a general point of view towards the great problems of reconstruction in the Empire, and a general attitude of mind towards those problems, more particularly the problems of reconstruction in those vast and undeveloped regions of the dependent Empire for the administration of which the Colonial Office and this House is directly responsible. It would be impossible for anyone in such a limit of time to deal with this subject without some reference, however brief, to the part borne by the Dominions and the Colonies in the War. Indeed, it is very hard to resist the temptation to devote the greater part of my time to the task of bringing home to the Committee the immensity of the patriotic efforts of our fellow citizens and fellow subjects beyond the seas, men and women of every race and every creed, who are-associated with us in that great league of the commonwealth of nations which for want of a better term we call the British) Empire.
6.0 P.M.
I need not give to the Committee figures to show what the Dominions have done. I will content myself with a single compari-
son, and I make it in no spirit of depreciation of the immense value of the assistance afforded by the United States to the Alliance in the closing phases of the War, or of the immense effort that the United States were prepared to make if that War had continued any longer. Dealing with the actual sum total of military effort in the field, the sum total accomplished before 11th November of last year, whether you take as. your standard of measurement the number of lives sacrificed or the numbers of the enemy killed or captured, or the total number of hours spent in the trenches, it is a fact that both Canada and Australia alone, each of them, contributed a greater total military effort up to 11th November last in this War than the great United States of America, with their population of over 100,000,000 souls. In the Crown Colonies the conditions are naturally so different that there could be no question of a military effort on their part at all comparable in intensity with that of this country or of the Dominions, but that effort has been far greater than I think is usually realised. In every part of the Empire the white community, whether official or whether unofficial, has contributed as high a quota as any community in the world.
Take, for instance, East Africa, which was the first community in the British Empire to impose conscription. More than two-thirds of the male inhabitants in that colony took the field. The white population of Rhodesia showed a similarly patriotic ardour. As regards native troops there again the combatant figures have been quite considerable, and their fighting value has been recognised by all the Generals under whom they served. The West African forces, the King's African Rifles, and the West Indies Regiment, between them put something like 80,000 combatant troops into the field, and very much more than half a million carriers and other auxiliaries were raised in the African Colonies to carry on the campaign in Africa and in other regions of the world. From every part of the Empire and every section of the population, from the native chiefs to the humblest of the people, gifts and contributions of every kind have flown lavishly towards the Red Cross and other funds. The Colonies themselves have in every instance contributed from their revenue a substantial sum towards the cost of the War. In many cases I am afraid that the liability which they have incurred
is much larger than prudent finance would allow. I hope that that fact will not be lost sight of in this country when the question of development and reconstruction in the Colonies have to be considered.
It is on those problems of repair and reconstruction that I would particularly like to speak to the Committee, I am speaking, of course, of the problems of repair and reconstruction in the Colonies and Protectorates for which the Imperial Parliament is directly responsible. In all these matters we have an immense amount of leeway to make up after the War. It is quite true that in some of the Colonies and Protectorates they have gained considerable advantages during the War by the immense demand for raw materials of all sorts; but we must never forget that right through the War the administration has been understaffed, the whole work of development has had to be put on one side, and in some cases, as for instance that of East Africa, the whole work of development has not only been retarded but has inevitably been set back and injured by the actual process of the campaign which took place in those regions. All this required great effort on the part of the Colonial: administration and of the Colonial Office. What I wish to impress on this Committee —and I know it is the intense conviction of the Secretary of State—is that much more than that is wanted. Reconstruction in the outer Empire, just as much as here at home, must mean something more than the restoration of pre-war conditions. It must mean that we must set up a new and more positive standard of our duty and obligation towards the peoples to whom this House is in the position of a trustee and to those territories whose boundless-potentialities call urgently for development in the interests of their own inhabitants, of the British Empire as a whole, and of the impoverished and wasted world.
I can say without fear of contradiction that British Colonial administration formerly was the best in the world. I can say equally without fear of contradiction that British social and industrial legislation before the War, as far as it went, was the best in the world. But just as we are not content to accept the prewar standard in social legislation as our standard after the War, so, as far as the entire administration of our Colonies and Protectorates is concerned, the pre-war standard is not enough. We must have a new standard of effort and achievement
and a new consciousness in regard to the task that lies before us. An additional reason for setting a. now standard in our task of reconstruction is that by the terms of the Treaty of Peace large territories will be assigned to us under a mandate. I do not think that that mandate is likely to impose upon us any conditions which we would not impose on ourselves or which we have not been in the habit of imposing upon ourselves whenever we dealt with subject peoples. We have always in very large measures treated native territories under our rule as a mandate to us in the interests of the inhabitants and of the world at large, and we have justified our authority hot merely in our own interests, but by the general consent of other nations with regard to our rule. It is our task now to do this work more successfully than ever, and to establish beyond doubt in the judgment of mankind that we are worthy of the trust reposed in us.
The first essential in the task before us is to bring our machinery for reconstruction to the highest stage of efficiency. When I speak of machinery for reconstruction I mean the men who have got to carry out the task of reconstruction. I mean, for instance, that splendid Colonial service to whom the Empire owed so great a debt of gratitude during these long trying years. These men have done wonderful work. Thousands of them have volunteered for military service, and without their services, their knowledge of languages, their moral power over natives, it would have been impossible to expand our small native Armies to the extent to which they were expanded; but I wish to speak more particularly not of those who were allowed to go to the front, but of those whom in the interests of the Service it was necessary to forbid to go, men who have done their own work and the work of those who have gone to the front, who have been without leave year after year in most trying conditions of climate, and often with acute domestic anxiety due to a scale of pay which, not too generous I am afraid, was made miserably inadequate by the very heavy increase in the cost of living. This last evil has, of course, to a very considerable extent been remedied by the granting of war bonuses on a varying scale, but I think in most cases reasonably generous and ample in the different Colonies. But,
of course, that is a purely temporary measure, and it is, 1 know, the conviction of the Secretary of State that the whole permanent scale of salaries in the Colonial Civil Service does need revision and will have to be most seriously considered in the near future.
Of course, it is not only a question of money. It is a question of the whole conditions in which these men have to do their strenuous and difficult work and maintain their health, and that moral poise which is so necessary in dealing with a subject and often not very biddable tribe or race. There is one aspect of the question to which I know the Secretary of State attached the very greatest importance. That is the desirability of making married life more possible for members of the Civil Service and bringing about a condition of health and housing, even in those regions which have had in the past the worst reputation, so as to mass married lifts as far as possible the rule rather than the exception. I have spoken about the Civil servants, and primarily it is upon them we have to depend in our task of administration, but, of course, we do not want to depend upon them alone. We do wish to enlist in every way the co-operation of every other element in those Colonies, whether officially, as we do enlist them through legislative councils and executive councils, or unofficially through the advice and support that the independent members of the community can give to a Government which is prepared to trust and consult them?
Of course in that matter, however great cur confidence and trust in the officials who have to carry out the work in this time of reconstruction, the ideal towards which we are aiming in the sphere for which the Colonial Office is responsible is the same ideal which is found throughout the rest of our Dominions, the ideal of self-government, the participation of the people of the country, in so far as they are capable of it, in the government of the country. The difficulties of advancing in that direction are very great in some cases these difficulties arise owing to the backward condition of the population, whom it would be a crime to allow to walk unassisted at the present time. In other cases, where the population is of the smallest and most scattered character you cannot decide that a community with a population equal to a second or third-class city in this country has all the
attributes of self-government, even though in other respects it might be fit for it. Again you may have a case, as in Gibraltar or Malta, where the population live within the precincts of a military fortress or live immediately around a great military or naval fortress. All these things do make tile problem difficult and complex. Critics in this House may say sometimes that we are slow in making progress, that we see the difficulties rather mere clearly than they do, or that those difficulties seem more serious to us. But I would like to give them this assurance that, though we are not able to move as rapidly as they would wish us in some respects, at any rate we have the same ultimate goal in mind as they have.
I come now to the actual task of reconstruction itself. One of the first and greatest problems of reconstruction in the outer Empire, as in the heart of the Empire here, is the problem of health. The whole problem of the development of the tropics is in fact largely a problem of coping with disease. Remember that the deadliness of the tropics is not merely the deadliness to the white man. If he suffers it is entirely, or almost entirely, because he catches diseases with which the native community ground him is already infected, and which lowers the vitality. Our problem is not merely to make East Africa and West Africa healthy to the white man, but to make them healthy to the whole population, to undertake out there, as here at home, a campaign for dealing with the diseases of those countries in a much more comprehensive and bolder spirit than we have ever undertaken it before. I do not wish to depreciate what we have done in the past. A great work was initiated under Mr. Joseph Chamberlain for dealing with tropical diseases, which has already borne rich fruit. I believe that the death-rate among white officials in the West African Colonies Is to-day less than one-eighth of what it was twenty years ago, and the death-rate among the natives has also gone down, if not absolutely pari passu, it has largely gone down; but there is an immense amount to be done. I was immensely impressed some twelve years ago when I was in Uganda with the appalling wholesale destruction of the population brought about, on the one side, by sleeping sickness, and, on the other hand, by venereal diseases. Whole districts were literally exterminated. A very effective
campaign was begun to cope with these two problems, and a very large measure of success attended it. Up to the outbreak of war we could really look back with pride on what we had achieved. What happened then? A very high proportion of the medical officers in Uganda were required for military purposes and were taken away. Owing to the need for porters and carriers for the different expeditions marching up and down East Africa, there was a flow of population backwards and forwards from one end of the country to another, which brought that disease into districts which had practically been clear of it, and the state of the country to-day is one that calls for the very greatest effort to bring it back to the position we had reached before the outbreak of war. It is no easy problem. You have to get doctors, and they are very difficult to get at this time, even on quite reasonably substantial salaries. At any rate, I wish to bring that particular question of health before the, Committee. To my mind it is one of the greatest tasks which lie before us.
Another problem closely connected with the problem of health is that of dealing with the liquor traffic. There, again, I think that, upon the whole, we have been in advance of oilier Administrations in our effort to keep that traffic within bounds, more particularly by imposing heavy duties upon it. In large areas, as in Northern Rhodesia, we have long had complete prohibition of imported spirits, but we felt that we were bound to make a distinct advance and to give a lead. The late Secretary of State for the Colonies last year did announce, without waiting for agreement between the Powers, that, as far as the British West African Colonies were concerned, complete prohibition of imported trade spirits was a settled policy decided on and to be carried out as rapidly as circumstances would permit. It was not an easy decision to take. It involved a loss to the Revenue of Nigeria alone of something like £1,000,000 a year, and a loss to the Revenue of the Gold Coast of £500,000. To a Government anxious to find money for railways, for schools, and for every other laudable object, it was no small thing to have to abandon a large and easy source of revenue, and to try in one way or another, possibly by a very much less popular form of taxation, to get that revenue back again. I am glad to say that since that decision was taken by the British great progress has been made with respect to the International Convention on
these matters, and the British and French Governments between themselves have agreed to the raising of the minimum duty on trade spirits into their tropical Colonies to 17s. 6d. a gallon, which compares very favourably with the rate before the War.
Another problem to be dealt with is that of the arms traffic. There is a very great danger that, with the enormous number of arms that are likely to be at the disposal of various Governments throughout the world, there may be a temptation to smuggle those arms into every uncivilised region, with a result which means not only great difficulty and possible expense to the ruling Power, but also means slaughter and misery to all those weaker tribes which happen to be beyond the limit and prompt reach of the Government. Another problem in the outer Empire, as here, is the problem of labour. There, again, we have to deal in a constructive spirit with the problem. It is not enough for the Government merely to try to hold an even balance between the desire of the planter to get plenty of cheap workmen and their duty towards seeing that the native is well treated and remunerated. More than that, we want to see that production is not hampered by the absence of willing and understanding, wishful workers in this field. Our main hope, at least a very large avenue of development, lies in inducing the native to become his own employer, his own cultivator—to make him realise the advantage and the profit of becoming an intelligent cultivator. That has been done with very considerable success in many parts of the world. In the Gold Coast, for instance, we have induced the natives to take up with great enthusiasm "on their own," not as workers in the plantations, the cultivation of cocoa, and the output of cocoa from the Gold Coast has gone up from 960 tons in 1901 to 120,000 tons now—about 'half the whole world's production of cocoa. The cultivation of cotton in Uganda, and of sugar in many of the West Indies, has developed very appreciably by what has been called the small farmer development, by getting the native himself to grow for profit. Of course, all that can succeed only if the native really understands and can be educated. There is always, a certain measure of danger that a crop which is not carefully cultivated may fall below the standard which will secure it a market. There is a great danger to the Gold Coast cocoa of the quality not being sufficiently high to command a good price in the
world's markets. The natives may grow too much and too carelessly. A great part has been played there by the assistance of the Government, but a part, and a very useful part, can be played with the assistance of the white man's plantation. I am not one of those who believe that the white man's plantation with the hired coloured labour should cover the whole field. On the contrary, I wish to see the field of the small native cultivator extended as widely as possible. But there is plenty of room and plenty of need for both kinds of cultivation, the higher type of cultivation setting a standard which the others will follow. The old indenture system, I think on the whole carried out very reasonably and fairly, has yet brought up against itself a very strong feeling in India, and I do not think that on old lines we could hope to bring all the willing, helpful, Indian labour desired to those Colonies which would be glad to have it. What is wanted is to do what the Dominions have done—to offer settlement, offer opportunities to the men to come and make a home, to let the settler labour for himself if he likes for some of his time, but let him have his own choice in the matter.
I spoke just now of the desirability of educating the native. That is one of the greatest problems before us, and one in respect to which we are only at the very beginning of what we ought to do. There is a very large task before us, both in general education and, perhaps more particularly, in practical education in agriculture. We want to strengthen all our Agricultural Departments. We want to start, for study and research, agricultural colleges, or universities, if you like, which will be the centres from which new ideas and better methods will be diffused to all the surrounding Colonies. It is a matter about which there was a good deal of talk before the War. but, like many other things, it inevitably had to wait. I hope now to take up the matter again, in the first instance with the West Indies, and I hope also elsewhere in the tropical Empire, so that in this respect, as in others, we may be able to give a lead to other Administrations. I may mention in this connection that we have been fortunate in securing from the Treasury a Grant of £20,000 a year for special research work in those Colonies which are not able to do research work themselves, on the lines on which very much larger sums have been granted for research work in this country.
There is one subject as to which I should like to say a word, because it is the very key to all successful development, and that is the subject of railways. 1 confess I sometimes think that we have not done anything like what we ought to have done in the way of railway construction in our Crown Colonies and Protectorates. I think in that matter we have not had the courage of our convictions to the same extent as the Dominions, in the Dominions they have thousands of miles of railways through absolutely empty country, trusting that those railways would bring population and revenue with them. We have many regions in West Africa where we cannot lay down 100 miles of railway which is not paying its way within a few months. I tried to take out the figures to see how far our efforts in the Crown Colonies and Protectorates for which we are responsible compare in this matter with the efforts of the Dominions. They have no doubt been at it a good deal longer. The Dominions and Rhodesia had built altogether up to the outbreak of war something like 200.000 miles of railways, while the total of the railways in the Crown Colonies and Protectorates at that date was 3,700 miles. The total area of the Dominions is larger, but, even so, while there are thirteen miles of railway for every 1,000 square miles of territory in the Dominions, the figure for the Crown Colonies and Protectorates corresponding to that is 4.8. Or, to put the matter in another way, whereas in the, Dominions there is a mile of railway for every 220 inhabitants, in the Crown Colonies and Protectorates there is only a mile of railway for every 7,700 inhabitants. I think the Committee will agree that there is a primâ facie ease for a very great programme of railway construction. I know that that involves finding money, and I know the difficulties with regard to money with which the Government of this country and the industries of this country are faced. I do not want to put forward any undue claim for preference in the work of developing the Colonies, but I do wish to point it out, and I think it is well worth taking into consideration, and 1 believe that every pound spent would bring a manifold return in a very short period.
Again, it seems to me that we have been too timid in capitalising the territories under our charge, and I think that certainly, as compared with the Dominions, the Crown Colonies and Protectorates are
under-capitalised. I should like to give some figures which certainly convey that impression. 1 saw some figures the other day—they are not official; they are from the "Financier"—about the general investments in the Dominions and the Colonies. Up to 1914, all investments in this country of all kinds in the Dominions amounted to something like £1,300,000,000, and the sum total of the investments in the Crown Colonies and Protectorates was £120,000,000, or loss than a tenth of the investments in the 'Dominions. The amount of public loans raised in the Dominions is about £320,000,000, and in that I am not counting the loans raised during the War, while in the Crown Colonies and Protectorates the total is £22,000,000. I think, there again, there is on the face of it reasonable argument for thinking that we ought to invest more capital in the development of the Crown Colonies and Protectorates I give my own opinion for what it is worth. I think we have neverrealised sufficiently the immense economic possibilities of those Colonies and the immense wealth that could be created by science, energy, and organisation in those parts of the world. The prime object, of course, of that development must be the welfare of the inhabitants of those regions. Our first duty is to them; our object is not to exploit them, but to enable them materially, as well as in every other respect, to rise to a higher plane of living and civilisation. But I am as sure as I stand here that we cannot develop them and help them without an over-spill of wealth and prosperity that would be an immense help to this country in the difficult times that lie ahead. So much for the problem of reconstruction in. the Crown Colonies and Protectorates.
I should like also to say a word or two about a matter which I think several hon. Members wish to raise—that is, about Rhodesia. There you have a peculiar form of government which is neither Crown Colony nor self-government, but government by a chartered company, a form of government that was more common in the old days. You have the great example of the East India Company. I think there is this difference. The East India Company was undoubtedly in its inception and in its intention a commercial and trading concern. In the case of the British South Africa Company I think the circumstances are different. What Mr. Rhodes had in his mind was the
necessity of retaining for the British Empire and under the British Flag that great region of Southern Central Africa, and to prevent a fence of German and Boer territory being run right acoss the development of British South Africa. It was only because he could not enlist the support either of the Cape or Imperial Governments for his policy that he hoped by the device of a chartered company to get the necessary means and support to carry out the work, the importance of which in his mind lay in its Imperial significance. From his point of view I think his efforts were well justified. The fact that Rhodesia was British was invaluable in South Africa. The fact that Rhodesia lay between German South West and German East Africa, and that from Rhodesia we could co-operate effectively in the East African campaign, was invaluable to us. Looking at the matter from this point of view it is only a natural confirmation of Mr. Rhodes' intention that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council should have reported that this commercial company in its dealings had only been acting as agents of the Imperial Government.
That, of course, creates a new situation, because the Report of that Committee treats the chartered company as the agent of the Crown in dealing with these matters and lays it down that the company was, therefore, entitled to be reimbursed in respect of deficits incurred in connection with its administrative expenditure. It is obviously not easy to determine exactly what expenses the chartered company pay to administrative and to commercial expenses. Naturally, the company would wish to make its full claim. It seemed to us that the only way to settle that problem was to appoint a Commission which, whether from the judicial or financial side, should command such respect that its judgment upon the Report laid down by the Privy Council as compared with the facts presented to it here and in South Africa, would command universal respect. It is with this in view that we pressed and succeeded in inducing Lord Cave, in whom I think every Member of this House of every shade of opinion has great confidence, to accept the Chairmanship of that Commission, and joined with him is Lord Chalmers, whose experience in the Treasury, of course, qualifies him in the highest degree for that work, and Sir William Peat, head of the great firm of accountants, to go
into the whole of this matter and to investigate here and on the spot the accounts presented and the statement made by the South Africa Company, and to make all such inquiries as may seem to them desirable in order to come to a finding which shall in their opinion correctly and truly represent the judgment of the Committee of the Privy Council. 1 will not say a word more on that subject beyond this, that of course their assessment we are prepared to accept as a final, definite assessment. We are also committed that before any payment is made or any settlement come to as to the method of payment, or other matters that may arise after the account has been settled, that we shall come to this House for the sanction of the House on those matters

Major E. WOOD: Will that Commission do its work here or proceed to South Africa?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: That Commission began its sittings in the House of Lords yesterday, and it is going to hold a series of sittings at the earliest possible moment, and next month go out to South Africa and take evidence and hear opinion out there. I should like also to say a word about the constitutional development in the relations between ourselves and the great self-governing Dominions, because that has been one of the most remarkable features in the development of the British Constitution during the last two years. We went into this War without having the time and without having the machinery through which we could take the opinion of the Empire as a whole on. our policy. We had to act on our own decision, and happily the whole of the Empire endorsed that decision. But it was obvious that was not satisfactory, and a clear pledge was given by Mr. Asquith's Government that in the settlement of the terms of Peace the Dominions would have the fullest opportunity, not only of considering, but have a voice in deciding. During the last two years, by the happy device of what came to be known as the Imperial Cabinet, we have had a machinery both for consultation and for decisions. I was privileged to act as the Secretary of that body during its sessions, and whatever may be said about the novelty of the peculiar constitutional form of a Cabinet which as far as execution goes has to act through a number of autonomous and separate bodies, the
fact still remains that the common policy of the Empire, as regards the conduct of war, as regards the ever-pressing foreign questions that arose while the Imperial Cabinet was in session, as regards considering and laying down what we wished the terms of peace to be, was carried out as a single policy by a body of men who gamed a. single view of these matters and worked together as effectively as a Cabinet can work.
That process has been carried on at the Conference in Paris, and it has had two sides. The one that has most impressed the outside world is the fact that at that Conference the full equality of the Dominions with ourselves as nations has been recognised, not only by us, but by the other Governments. They have been treated not only as equal nations within the brotherhood of the British Empire, but as equal nations with other nations outside the Empire, and I know that there are. some timid Imperialists, I might perhaps call them, who are rather startled by this, who think it is a beginning of the end of any effective Imperial unity. My conviction is exactly the contrary. I have always been convinced that closer imperial unity could only be based on the recognition of the fullest equality of status between ourselves and the other Dominions of the Empire, and that conviction has only been strengthened by what tans happened in the last few months, because while on the one hand that Conference has recognised equality in the national status of the Dominions, that Conference has seen the Dominions and ourselves working together on the British Empire Delegation, which for the time being took the place of the Imperial Cabinet, as a single body with one mind, one thought, and one policy. The policy which the Prime Minister of this country brought back from the Peace Conference was not the United Kingdom policy, but the policy hammered out by the whole Empire, and on every Committee of that Conference the Dominions were represented, not as representing the Dominions, but as representing the British Empire. It was as representing the British Empire that Mr. Hughes was chairman of the Commission on indemnities, and it was as representing the British Empire that Sir Robert Borden dealt with the problem of territorial delimitation in the Near East. The more the principle of equality is openly established to the world, the greater the effective unity of the British
Empire. How that unity is to take a constitutional shape in the future no one can say. It has been agreed at the Conference of 1917 that as soon as may be after the conclusion of Peace a special constitutional conference is to assemble and to consider how, on the basis of those principles of autonomy and equality, effective common action can be taken in foreign policy and all cognate matters. 1 do not know whether that conference will be able to come to any definite conclusion, or what it may recommend. The difficulties in the way of any solution are enormous, but I do say this, that, difficult as the problem may be, it cannot be impossible, because no man has a right to call that impossible which for the last six months has been a reality in practice. The Empire has existed in fact and in practice as a unity for working purposes, and to my mind it is inconceivable that such a unity cannot somehow or other, by those patient and wise methods with which all our constitutional progress has been attained, be in some shape or form attained in the future.

Sir D. MACLEAN: The Committee listened with the very greatest interest to the very able and lucid account which my hon. Friend has made of the stewardship of the Colonial Office, and I can only express regret that a very much larger number of Members were not present lo listen to what has been laid before Us. in the very short time that I shall occupy of the Committee's attention. I should like, first of all, to deal with the point with which my hon. Friend concluded his speech, and that was the constitutional development which has taken place in the relations between ourselves and our self-governing Dominions. He spoke with warmth of gratitude and with eloquence of what has transpired of late, and it is indeed interesting to note that what really comes through all that he said was the truth of the paradox, the greater the liberty the greater the tie, and it has been a distinguishing characteristic of what we call the British Empire that its foundations have been most well and truly laid when they have been laid in trust and in faith, in those principles of freedom and responsibility by which alone history has shown the Empire could have been held together. The latest demonstration of that, of course, has been a magnificent result of the application of those well-established doctrines to South Africa. The rally of South Africa to the side
of this country was undoubtedly due to the application without fear of that great and fundamental principle. As to how far it will develop, I only say this: I am one who looks forward with hope, and, indeed, confidence, to the development in more definite shape of the co-ordination of common efforts between the Mother Country and the great self-governing Dominions, who are, as my hon. Friend has well said, in fact, sister nations. But this is the note of warning which, with all respect, I will put forward. We have done so well upon lines which are not so very clearly defined that it must be with the very greatest caution that we and our sister nations should approach any written Constitution—because I am afraid it must really come to that—which, by the mere fact that it is written and set, will lead undoubtedly to very great difficulties which have in the past been avoided owing to the fact that our relations were, I will not say ill-defined, but of so particularly fluid a nature as they have been. I am sure the whole question will be approached with the greatest desire to develop with, I am sure, all the caution that our experience of the past has taught us.
7.0.P.M.
Let me briefly say how much I and any other Member echoes the words which my hon. Friend has spoken of recognition, so far as words can recognise, although words fail us in the endeavour to recognise, the splendid joint services which were rendered by the Dominions beyond the seas, and also by our Crown Colonies, in the terrible War from which we have emerged. It is quite safe to say that without their efforts in the early days of the War no man can say what would have happened. Disaster which was following so swift upon us might easily have overtaken us, and the results might have been irrevocable, but the fact that they came in so speedily, with such enthusiasm and with such power, has been a contribution of which only historians of perhaps fifty years hence can adequately tell the tale— and not only in Europe and in the nearer East, but such a campaign as was carried on by General Botha in South-West Africa. I have no pretensions to any military knowledge, but I have heard it stated by those well qualified to judge that that campaign of General Botha's in South-West Africa will bear comparison with any campaign, either in strategy or the administrative work in its execution,
which has been carried out in this world War from which we have just emerged Turning from that to another point upon which my hon. Friend touched, and that will lead me to what I have to say equally with regard to Rhodesia—the question of the mandated territories under the League of Nations. It will require, I am certain, great care, great breadth of mind, and wide generosity in handling those territories which may be mandated to us. What, after all, has been the distinguishing characteristic of our country in its dealings with what we may call subject populations? It has been the fact that, although they were subject populations and territories, we always regarded ourselves as trustees. That was the real distinction between the British Empire and the Roman Empire or the Spanish Empire, and the fact that these other Empires looked upon possessions scattered over the world far distant from their Imperial centre as assets to be exploited rather than as trusts to be sacredly carried out, led sooner or later to their downfall, and that idea, that Roman and Spanish idea, was quite clearly the idea in the extension of the Colonial Empire of Germany, and her fate overtook her in return for her ambition and selfishness nearer home, but clearly the same thing would have overtaken her, because she had the same idea, and I am not at all certain that a very material factor in;he world opprobrium which fell upon the German Empire in the last four or five years was not this fact, that her Colonial administration was marked by selfish adherence to mere material German interests, with little or no regard to the welfare of the territories over which she sought to exercise control We all listened with the deepest interest to what my hon. and gallant Friend had to say as to the sterilisation of development not only of the Dominions beyond the seas, but also of our Crown Colonies. What a lesson it is as to the devastating effects of war ! War is never limited in its effects to the immediate countries concerned. You cannot go to any part of our Empire, self-governing or governed more or less directly by us, without seeing evidences of the devastation of war. The development of our Crown Colonies and of our Dominions certainly has been retarded, and it will mean a loss of nearly twenty years. I am sure that is not an exaggeration. Five years have gone, and it only requires four times five to make twenty
years. There is only one method of making a fresh start, and that is by severe, devoted, personal and national economy. It is the only way. There is no royal road to reconstruction except through self-sacrifice, and I hope we all, with our sister nations and those who are responsible for the administration of our Colonies, will realise that. There is no hope for the future except by strict attention, to a policy of reconstruction based upon sound finance, and sound finance only comes through the application of honesty and self-denial in all our individual dealings.
The decision of the Sub-committee of the Privy Council under the chairmanship of Lord Sumner set at rest once and for all the question of the ownership of the un-unalienated lands, which amount to about that the Chartered Company holds these unalienated lands which amount to about 73,000,000 acres out of about 90,000,000 acres odd. They hold them as agents on behalf of the British Crown. That carries with it trusteeship for the natives. Some very eloquent words were spoken by my hon. and gallant Friend when, practically, he made the claim that the record of this country in regard to native races was one which gives us almost a moral leadership in the dealings of conquering peoples with native races. I should be very glad to think that is so, and let us hope that it is, but there are some very black chapters in our dealings with conquered territories and with native races, and I am not sure that there are not some discreditable chapters in our attitude towards the native races even in Rhodesia. I gladly say that I have now come to the conclusion that that great and complex character, Cecil Rhodes, was substantially animated by great and noble Imperial ideas—on the whole that is my opinion, for what it may be worth—but his career was accompanied by very blustering developments and his entourage was marked by the presence of some men whose characters will not bear the same investigation and the same light of history.
My hon. and gallant Friend told us that the Chartered Company is a very different thing from the East India Company. The Chartered Company has been always regarded in this country as a very big and successful commercial undertaking. Our minds revert to the vast Stock Exchange transactions that have taken place in regard to its shares, and the idea that people rushed in to buy and sell shares in n company which was founded largely on
a philanthropic basis is not the idea of the people of this country. With regard to very many of its acts, it did not live up to many of the splendid conditions and expressive works in its own character. I do not for a moment compare it with the old John Company. I only express the hope, whatever may be its future, that it will live up much more closely to its charter, with its clauses of trusteeship, and, if it does not, then it will be the duty of the Government to see that it does. What is the position of the natives at the present moment? With the exception of those who have acquired land by purchase or by some such transaction, not a single, native owns a foot of the land in which he lives. That being the case, and the revenues of the country and the future development of its natural riches depending upon the labour of its natives, surely this country, with the League of Nations shedding its new ray upon a world sadly needing enlightenment, will see that this territory which, after all, is being mandated to us owing to the circumstances of the past, is administered in a spirit of trusteeship not only for the white settlers, but also for the natives.
The Government have set up a Commission of Inquiry to ascertain what compensation is to be given to the Chartered Company in respect of "necessary and proper administrative expenditure" since its initiation. I do not quite remember the terms of reference, but I suppose they are very wide. I should like to ask my hon. and gallant Friend one or two questions. Is it left to the Commission to decide whether the expenses incurred by the Chartered Company in the Matabele War were "necessary and proper administrative expenses"? I take that as an instance. If it is so found by the Commission, is the power of this House to express a difference of opinion absolutely unimpaired, or is their Report going to be adopted by the Government in its entirety and pressed upon the House with the weight of their majority? If so, we may take the document when it comes as almost literally inspired. We and Members sitting behind the Government Benches may protest, but if it is taken up by the Government in that way we know, of course, what will happen. It will be placed on the Statute Book, and that will be the end of the whole thing. Are we going to be allowed full and free opportunity of discussing the findings of the
Commission, and of expressing agreement or disagreement with those findings? I understand that some disagreement is expressed as to the constitution of the Commission, and as to whether ft should be composed of only three members, in every one of whom I personally have great confidence, namely, Lord Cave, Lord Chalmers, and Sir William Peat. There it is, very limited in numbers and high in the character of its personnel. Still it is not representative of the House of Commons. It is going out to South Africa to take evidence on the spot, and, whatever its findings, the House of Commons should have full opportunity of expressing its opinion on its findings in whole or in part. I do not know whether the Commission is going to conduct the whole of its proceedings in South Africa in public or in private, or whether there will be wide powers of representation of the interests involved. The natives should, I think, have full opportunities of representation. That was discussed, if I remember rightly, before the Special Committee of the Privy Council, and I think Lord Sumner and his colleagues took a wise and broad view and admitted it. I hope the Commission will exercise the same broad and generous outlook with regard to the representations that may be laid before them by those who speak on behalf of the natives. I should like also to ask my hon. and gallant Friend whether the Commission will take account of the assets already in the hands of the Chartered Company or of those to whom they have given Grants— that is to say, will a valuation be made of the land which has been alienated by the Chartered Company or is in their hands, so that, while we are informed as to any debts which the Commission may find to be due to the Chartered Company, we may also have some idea of what the assets are worth which they now hold?
I will conclude, as I began, by expressing our great pleasure at having the hon. and gallant Gentleman here for the first time in the capacity of Steward of the House of Commons as regards our great Dominions beyond the seas and our Crown Colonies. We wish him, as well as we can from this side of the House, a very happy tenure of office, although perhaps not quite so long as he might desire.

Mr. SPOOR: I should like to associate myself with the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken in regard to the feeling of
satisfaction with at any rate some parts of the speech we have just had from the hon. and gallant Member who represents the Colonial Office in this House. With a great deal of what he said regarding the men who form part of our Colonial Administration, one, of course, entirely agrees. We know that these men have given years of devoted service, often under trying conditions, and anybody who has any knowledge of the nature of their work will share the appreciation of it which has been expressed. At the same time, we are glad to hear from the hon. and gallant Member that, whilst pre-war standards may have been satisfactory up to a point in Colonial administration, he feels—and I take it that he is expressing the opinion of the Colonial Office and of the Government—that pre-war standards will not do for the days and years that lie immediately ahead.
I should like to deal specifically with the question of the British South Africa Company and the claim that they are now making upon the Imperial Exchequer. 1 should like to say, first of all, that 1 regret very much that the Leader of the Labour party, the right hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Adamson), is not present to-night. The Motion to reduce the Vote stands in his name, and I know that he did desire to take part in this Debate, but, unfortunately, he is indisposed, and therefore cannot do so. I know that he has given this question considerable thought, and would have voiced with much greater authority than I can hope to do the point of view of the Labour party. We have been urged by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles and by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to practice the most rigid economy. I imagine that there will be general agreement amongst all sections of the House as to the wisdom of that advice, and as to the supreme necessity at this time, in our own interests and in the interests of our Colonies and of other parts of the world, of exereising the most rigid economy that is possible. It is because we believe that that the Labour party placed upon the Question Paper in. April last, and has since repeated on two or three occasions, a question relating to the claim that is being made by the British South Africa Company. What is it that we hear from the hon, and gallant Gentleman? It is a statement of the policy that the Government have adopted with regard to the setting up of this Commission and the agreement that has ap-
parently been arrived at that the Commission's decisions shall be accepted as final. I would like to remind the House of the words used by the Leader of the House on the 16th April last, when he answered the Leader of the Labour party as to the claim that was made, and as to whether full opportunity would be given to this House to discuss that claim in all its bearings. The Leader of the House replied:
This claim clearly demands the closest scrutiny, and the Government will not commit themselves to any payment without the sanction of the House of Commons.
After that, other questions were asked, and yesterday the question was repeated whether the recommendations of Lord Cave's Commission as to the amount to be paid to the Chartered Company would be binding. The answer given then, and repeated to-night, was in the affirmative. We are, apparently, to have an opportunity of discussing the final findings of Lord Cave's Commission, but we are to have no voice whatever in any modification of that decision or in any reduction or increase of the amount to be paid that this House may wish to suggest. As a matter of fact, our power is, for all practical purposes, going to be taken entirely from us. I suggest that the statement made yesterday and repeated to day is in flat contradiction of the statement made by the Leader of the House on the 16th April last. Certainly there was implicit in that statement the idea that this House would have a full opportunity of going thoroughly into the merits of that claim. A Commission has been established, and I agree with what has been said regarding the character of the gentlemen who have been selected for the work—regarding their supreme fitness for the task they have in hand. But I would respectfully suggest that, seeing that the British taxpayer is to be asked to foot this Bill, it is very desirable that this House should be represented on such a Commission. We are here in the interests of the British taxpayer, and yet a Commission has been appointed which, although its members may have all the qualifications that are claimed for them, can hardly be said to be representative of those who have finally to pay the bill. I have noticed, too, some rather interesting developments during recent days. Just recently the annual meeting was held of the British South Africa Company, and in the newspaper report of that meeting we are told that
when this Commission goes to Rhodesia it will be accompanied by a member of the board. A member of the board will be in Rhodesia during the inquiry to watch over the presentation of the company's case, and he will have the assistance of the Attorney-General (Mr. Tredgold), who is fully conversant with all the legal questions involved. That little sentence does suggest that, although the Commission may go out with the best intentions in the world, there is evidently going to be an effort made to surround them with an atmosphere, to say nothing more, highly favourable to the case of the Chartered Company. I submit that, from any point of view, that is by no means desirable. I would like just to ask what really is this claim that we are being asked to meet? It has grown from £1,250,000 in 1898 to between £7,000,000 and £8,000,000 as a provisional amount at the present time.

Notice taken that forty Members were not present; House counted; and, forty Members being found present—

Mr. SPOOR: I would like the House to examine very briefly some of the details of this claim, which, as I have said, has grown very curiously since it was first made in 1898. Then its amount was £1,250,000; to-day, according to the statement of the Leader of the House in April, it is somewhere between £7,000,000 and £8,000,000, and we have been told, by the writer of a recent article in the "Times," that the ultimate amount of that claim will be nearer £18,000,000. Whatever its amount, apparently it has to be met by the British taxpayer. It is rather interesting to note that a year ago, at the annual meeting of the company, the chairman's statment included the following remark:
It is important to note that our claim has to be met directly by the Imperial Government, and not by the people of Rhodesia. [Cheers]
I think we can quite understand the reason for those cheers. The statement goes on:
We are accordingly assured of a very solvent debtor.
Whether the British public, when they come into full possession of the facts, will share that view, is another matter. When we look into the details of this claim, we see that it is rather curiously made up. I notice that it includes the cost of the Matabele War of 1893. It includes administrative deficits up to November, 1917, of £3,728,000. It includes also a number of charges against the War. It includes 4 per
cent. interest on, say, £5,000,000 for fifteen years, and further deficits. That, of course, is the larger claim of £18,000,000 to which reference has already been made. But the point I want to emphasise is this, that the claim of the company includes the cost of two wars—two wars which, I believe there is general agreement, were unnecessary. I want to ask this House whether, reasonably, the cost of the Matabele War and the £2,500,000 cost of the Mashona War can be properly regarded as administrative charges? I want to know whether the British taxpayer should be compelled to pay for enterprises as to which there was certainly little agreement in this country at the time they were embarked upon. I read here that Lord Ripon, for the Imperial Government, so late as 26th August, 1893, cabled
I should certainly prohibit any offensive movement in the interest of the South Africa Company.
Twelve days earlier Dr. Starr Jameson had signed a secret agreement—no longer a secret agreement, I imagine, as most Members, no doubt, have a copy of it—to invade Matabeleland, setting forth the terms of service for the members of the force, including—to quote the words of the agreement—" half the loot."
I do suggest—and I am sure this suggestion should be agreed to by all sections of this House—that before this claim can be even considered it has got to be very carefully investigated indeed. I suggest that that investigation should be carried out by the most competent and the most independent firm of chartered accountants that can be secured. As a matter of business efficiency, apart from any other consideration, I think we are entitled to that. So far as the Rhodesians themselves are concerned—and they live under the beneficent rule of the South Africa Company—they apparently have no intention of doing anything to meet this claim. I have already quoted the statement of the chairman of the company, and it would be quite possible, were it necessary, to quote the opinion of Rhodesians on the spot. With regard to the matter of loot to which I have referred, it is important to bear in mind that the loot captured by the company in 1893 included from 40,000 to 70,000 head of stock, and the question does arise as to whether, in ariving at the figure of the cost of the Matabele War, these assets were taken into consideration. That is only one more
argument, I submit, in favour of the most thorough investigation that can possibly be given to this very complicated question, and, so far as the Labour party is concerned, we feel that not only should the character of the Commission be different from what it is, not only should this House be represented on that Commission, but we also feel that the most careful investigation should be persisted in be fore a single penny-piece be taken from the British taxpayers to finance a commercial concern that, apparently, has been rather unwisely administered, to say the least.
There is, however, another side to this Rhodesian question, to which brief reference was made by the hon. and gallant-Gentleman who spoke first, and that is the treatment of the natives. He quite rightly said that our first duty iii Rhodesia, and in countries like it, is most obviously to the people who inherit the land. He repeated what has frequently been repeated in this House—and I only wish it had always been acted upon by some who have gone oversea—that it was not our intention or desire to exploit these people. I have in my hand a pamphlet that I imagine has been sent to every Member of this House. I notice it bears on the back the names of men well known in the public life of our country, and one or two who arc distinguished Members of the House of Commons. If the statements contained in this pamphlet, are true—if these statements are substantially true—I say that here we have a record of commercial criminality and of bad administration that it would indeed be very difficult to parallel. I would like to suggest that the terms of reference under which this Commission is going to work should be wider, so as to take in the whole question of administration in that country, and especially in so far as that affects the life of the nation. To take one or two sentences in this pamphlet:
The fact presented is that no single native of the Mashona and Matabele and kindred tribes owns, either personally or through membership of his tribe, a foot of land, a spring of water, a sacred graveyard, a patch of garden, or even a plot on which the native hut is erected.
I say if that statement is true, this is obviously a case for very, very serious and close investigation, and for reformation as well. On the last page of this pamphlet we are told that, whilst this company could have its case prepared out of public funds,
and the natives themselves were compelled through taxation to pay for preparing the case for the white settlers, they were not allowed to contribute towards funds to prepare their own case. If that statement is also true, it is high time we had an investigation of a very thorough kind. I do not want to go on quoting that pamphlet. 1 only hope it has been read by Members of the House who have received it, and I submit that the very closest investigation should be made into the allegations that are contained in it. I have in my hand the photograph of a certificate of registration supplied to the natives of Rhodesia. It is rather difficult to believe that certificates of this character—at all events framed as this particular one is—do exist in the- twentieth century and under the Union Jack. We have here the phrase, "For the protection of the employer," and we have the phrase, "In case of desertion."

Mr. G. MURRAY: Would the hon. Member state what the certificate is? Is it a passport?

Mr. SPOOR: This is a certificate of registration. I am quite willing to allow the hon. Member to look at it if he wishes to.

Mr. MURRAY: Certificates and passports are rather different things.

Mr. SPOOR: But the very phrases upon that permit are of a character quite out of harmony, I believe and hope, with our methods of government, and I suggest that we will shortly need in this Empire of ours a new Wilberforce to combat the tendency towards what might be described by many people, not as ordinary working conditions, but as very real slavery. I do not believe that this method of administering a country like Rhodesia is one that would commend itself for a single moment to the public of this country were they aware of the actual facts, and I believe—again, I say if the statements that have been made are true— I believe that the continuance of such a state of affairs will disgrace our national honour and lower our national prestige. Therefore, I would repeat that, having regard to the serious charges that have been made, the terms of reference of this Commission should be wide enough to include the most thorough investigation into the case. I should like to refer briefly to the case of the natives of South Africa. In South Africa we have, I believe, some-
where about 3,500,000 native people, and about 1,500,000 whites. Prior, to the Act of Union, prior to the South African War, the natives of that country enjoyed privileges equally with whites, but since—

Captain ORMSBY-GORE: Only in the British parts- not in the Transvaal and Orange River Colony.

Mr. SPOOR: I certainly meant my words to be understood as referring only to what then was a British Colony. I know that so far as the Transvaal and all parts under Dutch control were concerned, the natives had no privileges at all. As a. matter of fact, that remark will really emphasise what I want to say next. Since the Act of Union there has grown up, as ail familiar with South Africa knew must inevitably happen, a considerable Boer ascendancy in all political matters. The result of that ascendancy is that the Boer point of view, so far as the native is concerned, is unduly emphasised, and from the moment of the passing of the Act of Union and the coming into existence of the-new South Africa, there has been a definite tendency to eliminate and destroy the rights of the natives. The natives feel this very strongly. They have petitioned this Government, so far without success. They have applied to the Colonial Office. The Colonial Secretary tells them that that is a question that cannot be dealt with here; they must fight their case out in South Africa. I want to ask how it is possible for the natives of South Africa to fight their case out in that country when in that country they are denied all constitutional rights? Those people consequently look to the Imperial Government, and I submit that this is a question in which the Imperial Government should exercise every power they have got in order to restore to the natives of that country the conditions which existed before the Act of Union, and in order to let them recognise that, so far as British rule is concerned, it is our desire that all classes and all colours s' hall live equally and freely together, enjoying common rights.
I would, therefore, urge the Colonial Office to do everything in their power to remedy a state of affairs which is a die-grace to the Government of South Africa, and I cannot but believe that any representations made by the Imperial Government to South Africa would have some effect. At all events, I do think that, inasmuch as the natives in the British part of South Africa before the Act of Union
enjoyed conditions of freedom and equality with the whites, it is our duty, an obligation rests upon us, to see that they enjoy no less privileges than they did then. It is a difficult question. One is not blind to the very, very complex character of the problem with which we have to deal. I would like to suggest to the Colonial Office —Ido not know whether or not it is a practical proposition—that an attempt should be made to bring about an exhaustive study of the native question in South Africt, if possible in conjunction with the Union Government, and the investigation might be, say, pretty much on the lines of the investigation which is now being conducted into Indian affairs. I do not know how far it would be possible to follow that line, but this is a question for which a certain primary responsibility rests upon the Imperial Government. It is because I feel this question of the treatment of the natives, which, after all, is one of supreme importance not only for our good name, but also in the interests of the maintenance of stability within the Empire —because, I say, I believe that, 1 offer the suggestion I have just made.

Captain ORMSBY-GORE: Before I deal with the point that has been dealt with by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down in regard to South Africa, I should like to express my appreciation of the wide survey which has been given by my hon. and gallant Friend who represents the Colonial Office here, and more particularly for the lead he has set to all Colonial administrators in holding aloft a standard— a standard which is high and new. Towards the end of his speech he referred to the remarkable development which has taken place during the War and during the Peace Conference of our Imperial organisation. I am very glad, in one way, that he put that first in the survey of the Crown Colonies and the Protectorates for which he is more directly responsible. I hope it means, in his own mind at any rate, that he contemplates the separation at an early date of the Dominions Department of the Colonial Office, and the handing of it over to some other Department altogether. The Colonial Office have quite enough to do without undertaking the very responsible task of the development and administration of the Crown Colonies and Protectorates. I hope that before many years are passed that we shall see the Dominions Department out of the hands of the hon. and
gallant Gentleman altogether, and more directly under the Prime Minister. Take the question which was referred to by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down—the very important native question in the Union of South Africa. I do not think he exaggerated at all. I think the evils there are very great indeed. It is extremely difficult for the Colonial Office— which is hardly in a position, or perhaps is not in a position, to have the necessary weight behind it—to make an effective representation to the Dominion Governments and urge them to act in this matter; whereas if the Dominions Department were transferred to the Prime Minister it would have behind it the weight of authority of the Prime Minister in making any such representations. They would, I think, be received in quite a different manner by, say, the Dominion Government of South Africa, who would feel that, they were not on a level with the Crown Colonies and Protectorates, but that they were being addressed as equals; therefore, they would be more ready to listen to the representations put forward by this country in the interests of the native population.
Having said that in general, I want to come, to the question which has been referred to by the Leader of the Liberal party and by the hon. Member who has just sat down—Rhodesia. I am sorry that my hon. Friend who sits beside me and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for one of the Divisions of Worcestershire have put their names to a pamphlet which has been issued to Members of this House, and which, to my mind, exaggerates, if it does not altogether misrepresent, the truth of the situation in regard to the natives in Rhodesia. I can only speak in this matter—I have nothing to do with the Chartered Company—as one who has visited Rhodesia—as one who has seen the natives in the country, has seen the white settlers, and travelled in both Northern and Southern Rhodesia, in Matabeleland, and Mashonaland. I assure the House that things in Rhodesia, as regards the treatment of the natives, arc immeasurably better than they are in any other part, certainly than in any part of the Union of South Africa, and, to my mind, considerably above the level of what they are in British East Africa. On investigation it will, I think, be found that the Chartered Company's treatment of the native population—certainly since 1893—has been most creditable.
I want to refer at the outset to the question of the land. The right hon. Gentle man on the Front Opposition Bench said that the natives of Rhodesia, numbering 800,000, had no land. I have seen the magnificent native reserves. I have seen them and their land in Rhodesia being cultivated in their own way with their own flocks and herds. Apart, however, from the evidence of my own eyes, we have the evidence of a recent and very important impartial Imperial Commission on the subject. This phamphlet of Mr. Harris's must not obscure the fact that the Imperial Commission had nothing to do with the company, although one member of the Commission held office under the company. The Commission consisted, in addition to that man, of two of the most noted Imperial Native Commissioners— namely, the present Resident Commissioner of Uganda and the present Resident Commissioner of Basutoland, both directly under the Imperial Government. These formed the Native Reserve Commission in 1915. They issued a very important. Report on this very question. What was their finding? Their finding was that the original term of the charter, which made it incumbent upon the British South Africa Company to set aside sufficient native reserves had been amply fulfilled, and that there was 1,000,000 acres in excess of the immediate requirements laid aside for native reserves. That is a very important fact. I must say—and I want to be quite fair—that, in addition, the Commission recommended that certain alterations should be made in the delimitation of these reserves. I understand—and I hope to hear a reply from the Colonial Secretary on the point—that the Government have accepted these findings. I am perfectly certain that the Chartered Company is willing and anxious to carry out at the earliest possible moment those rearrangements of the native reserves recommended by that Imperial Commission. The real misconception at the root of Mr. Harris's pamphlet, which has been circulated to Members of this House, is the whole case which he tried to make out on the basis of the private ownership of land. Why, take the natives of Southern Rhodesia. Except where they have been in contact with the white settlers, they have not got the slightest conception of private ownership in land. Take the situation in Matabeleland before the Matabele War. That, if ever there was, was a military Socialistic State. Even the cattle belonged
to Lobengula. The whole country belonged to Lobengula. As to the question of ownership, everything was held by the body of warriors which, in comparatively recent times, came up from Zululand, killed off the native population, and asserted themselves as a military aristocracy, or, rather, cleared off everybody, and became a militarist power in the western part of Southern Rhodesia. The Matabele were a very fine, warlike people. They had many of the virtues of the savage as well as many of his shortcomings. Their principal shortcoming was that they invariably raided all their neighbours, killed off the men, took all the women and cattle, and left the country in a pretty depopulated state. There is no doubt there is a case to be made out for the Matabele War which has not been put by my hon. Friend who has just sat down.
8.0.P.M.
There is no doubt that for many years it had been the practice of the Matabeles on every possible opportunity to raid the Mashonas, who were much inferior in stature and physique, and who were then under our protection, and whose country was then being developed by our enterprise. They looked to us to protect them. The warlike Matabele were held together on a war basis. They were a constant menace to the peaceful development of civilisation in that part of Africa, or anything near it. I think that for the final clearing out of the Matabele abundant justification has been made. I have sat under Lobengula's tree on a little rounded hill outside Buluwayo. Then, I suppose, it was surrounded by very small patches of cultivation, by a few kraals, and by a small number of cattle. Within a mile of that kraal you have now got a British railway junction and a town inhabited by a population well into four figures. The place is laid out with new water-places. Citrus fruit is growing, and there are all the signs of modern development and civilisation. The Matabele, instead of being a gentleman who killed his fellow men, is prevented from carrying out that practice. He discharges many functions, from that of a cultivator of the soil to a rickshaw runner, and various other occupations of the kind. The Mashonas are now largely developed and are increasing in numbers, and their herds are increasing. There is another side to the question to that which has been put by the hon. Member who has just sat down. I am positive that the more this-
land question is investigated the more you will find that the Chartered Company, against which there seems to be a prejudice merely because it is the Chartered Company, and because it is a financial company, its administration, considering its difficulties and its great task, has been of a remarkably high order, and reflecting great credit upon the British pioneers who have gone out under the auspices of that company, and have developed the gold mines and other things.
I will tell the House, from my own experience, that there is no better system of schools in the world than the few created by the Chartered Company in South Africa. They are some of the best in any continent. You get all kinds of people attending them, and very good they are. I was enormously impressed by the speed and the energy of the development I saw-going on in Rhodesia. I have been in German East Africa and other places, and what struck me was that you do not see cringing natives but they were really getting a good chance. I think 1 ought in justification of the Chartered Company to remind the House that as the hon Member quoted Lord Ripon he, after the Matabele War, completely exonerated in a letter Dr. Jameson from any responsibility for what has been made so much of in Mr. Harris's pamphlet.
Every Imperial investigation into the conduct of the Chartered Company has vindicated the conduct of that company. I want the House to realise that in the case of the Chartered Company there is a system of diarchy, the commercial and the administrative side. I know nothing about the commercial side, and I am not a business man. 1 do not own any shares in any company, and therefore I am not qualified to judge as to how the commercial undertakings of this company have been managed, but from what I have seen on the administrative side I am confident that the administration of the Chartered Company will come out well in any investigation. I will quote Lord Selborne's view which was given when he was High Commissioner in 1906:
The shareholders have embarked an enormous capital on which they have not yet received a penny dividend, yet without their assistance, backing the imagination of Mr. Cecil J. Rhodes, the civilisation of Southern Rhodesia would not have existed, and the territory would probably have been lost to British South Africa, The people of Southern Rhodesia have had an extraordinary share of trials; they have had to pass through the ordeal
of no less than three wars and of two periods of cattle disease of exceptional virulence, while with the rest of South Africa they have suffered from recurring years of drought. They have lived too close to the scene of action to appreciate, as I Can, going to Southern Rhodesia for the first time, the marvellous results of these sixteen years of self-sacrifice- and work. Sixteen years ago Mashonaland and thirteen years ago Matabeleland were absolutely uncivilised countries. To-day they reproduce on a small scale exactly the same sense of civilised and progressive industry in township, in farm, and in mine, as is to be found in the Cape Colony, Natal, the Orange River Colony, or the Transvaal. These results strike the newcomer as little short of marvellous, and the credit for these results must be divided between the shareholders of the British South Africa Company and the people of Southern Rhodesia.
That is the tribute of a High, Commissioner which ought to weigh with this House. I have risen to defend the action of the British South Africa Company in regard to their treatment of the native, and I am glad that this House is showing, and I hope will continue to show, a deep interest in the progressive welfare of the natives of Africa. This is a thing we have to watch very carefully in East Africa particularly. Throughout the whole of the "Dark Continent the native problem is giving a good deal of anxiety, and rightly so, to all thinking men. The native problem has to be handled sympathetically, and I am perfectly certain that mere commercial and trade considerations are not enough nowadays in dealing with African development, because we have to develop the latent resources in such a manner that it will not be to the moral disadvantage either of the native or white settlers.
I am perfectly confident that unless we are constantly making a great effort to raise the level of black civilisation the white civilisation in contact with it will go down and deteriorate. Unless the Colonial Office and all the agents of the Government are constantly setting a standard to the white settler and constantly reminding him of the great responsibilities of every white who is in contact with black races, that there will be a demoralisation of the white race, and there will be no real advancement or progress. The black will progress on very different lines to the white. The whole problem does deserve consideration and study. Some of the work the British Native Commissioners has been very good, and I will give as an instance Northern Rhodesia and the Easternparts of Cape Colony, which deserve the study of everybody throughout Africa. This is a difficult problem requir-
ing careful study, and we must be careful how we handle it. We may raise up a great war of racial feeling if we are not careful. Hitherto, in many places, I am glad to think that the black race and the white race have shown that mutual respect for each other which alone can be the ground upon which mutual co-operation is to take place.
There is a growing tendency to regard the native of Africa merely as a means for the development of commercial enterprises, but that is absolutely fatal. If in the rightful desire for commercial development you lose sight of the enormous moral responsibility you will make a mistake. Take German East Africa, which we understand comes under the mandate of this country. There you see a population of seven and a half million blacks. If you use these people in a mere commercial manner and not to assist in the development of their country without realising the great moral responsibility, and bringing elements of education—not necessarily Western education—to those natives, that will be a wrong policy. It is often the fashion to laugh at missionaries. I never laugh at them here. The missionaries have done a great deal, but unless something of the missionary spirit is behind the service of the Crown in dealing with the African natives, unless there is that sense of moral responsibility, I am afraid that looking over years in the future we may be raising up a great problem in Africa which may prove very difficult to handle. It is one of the greatest problems the Colonial Office have before them. I am particularly glad to hear the note that was struck by the Under-Secretary this afternoon, in which he set a higher standard than the pre-war standard. I hope that will always be so in our administration in Africa.

Mr. G. MURRAY: I desired to take part in the Debate this afternoon with special reference to the question of Rhodesia and the various questions which have been raised in regard to the natives. I lived in that country some years and I administered a section of the Transvaal as a Commissioner. At the same time, it is not my intention to do so, because I wish to take she House to another part of the Empire which is hardly so much developed as South Africa, and which requires the special consideration of the Colonial Office to-day. Before doing so, I think it has given me the opportunity of saying how fortunate I believe the country is in having
Lord Milner at the head of the Colonial Office to-day. I served under him for five or six years in South Africa, and I had a very full opportunity of observing the work that he did and the immense good which he achieved for South Africa. I will mention only this one fact, that his policy after the war in the Transvaal especially was to promote agriculture, which he believed in as the backbone of the prosperity of that country; and he raised revenues through railway rates and other unpopular methods in order to set up an agricultural department in the Transvaal which was unrivalled then and, I think, has been unrivalled ever since. As a result of that, a spirit of emulation was established in Cape Colony, Natal, and other British States in South Africa during the ten years preceding the outbreak of this last great War, with the result that the agricultural exports and production in South Africa have doubled themselves.
I should also like to congratulate the Under-Secretary for the Colonies upon the very eloquent and able speech which he has delivered this afternoon. He carried us to many countries and over many subjects, and he showed by that speech that he has a great grasp of what is necessary to develop the Empire, and a great grasp not only of the direct problems, but of the more abstract problems, like health and education, which have to be solved. I believe that under the guidance of Lord Milner and the present Under-Secretary for the Colonies our Colonial policy will be based on a broad and practical spirit.
The part of the Empire to which I wish to take the Committee this afternoon is British West India. British West India is some 2,000 miles from here. It consists of a chain of islands which reach in a semicircular form from Jamaica to Trinidad and on to British Guiana. It comprises a very large area. There are many problems in connection with these islands which it would not be possible for me to attempt to deal with in this Debate; in fact, I could not deal with one-eighth of the problems which concern these places. I would like to mention particularly, with regard to the islands themselves, that perhaps the most important matters which concern them at present are, first of all, the steamship services from the United Kingdom and from Canada, and, secondly, the cable service, which has been referred to in this House at Question Time during the last two or three weeks. These are matters which are
of special importance to the West Indies at the present moment; and in connection with the cable service, I do think, from the point of view of promoting British trade, it is extremely important that as soon as possible the charges for cables between the United Kingdom and the British West Indies, and between Canada and those Colonies, should be so reduced as to make them as cheap, if not cheaper, than cables to the United States. In South America we have this very large territory of British Guiana. It is the only British Colony in South America, and it is, therefore, our special duty to do all we can to promote its development in order to indicate to the South American Republics that we believe in the possibilities of South America, and that we do not consider the South American Republics are able to do more for their countries than we can do for British Guiana.
British Guiana, I believe, is a great deal larger than Uruguay, although the population of the latter place, and the trade also, is four or five times larger than that of British Guiana. What is the reason that British Guiana has not been developed as it should have been? Here is a huge country, 90,000 square miles in ex tent, with only some 300 square miles of it developed for the production of rice, sugar, and other tropical produce. This huge hinterland of 90,000 square miles includes 70,000 square miles of magnificent forests of hard and soft wood, including the hard wood which was utilised in connection with the construction of the Panama Canal. It has huge waterways with a sufficient volume of water to give all the power that is necessary for every kind of industry that can be developed in the country. In the olden days I believe British Guiana was the El Dorado of Sir Walter Raleigh. We know that diamonds and gold are there, we know that bauxite is there, and here is this magnificent territory, with all these wondrous properties, with only its fringe on the coast line developed! I am not going to suggest that the Colonial Office or that the Colonial authorities in British Guiana have not attempted in one way or another in past years to develop this Colony. There have been many schemes with this object, but they have always remained on paper.
Just before the War the Imperial Government and the Colonial Office took this matter seriously in hand, in conjunction with the Colonial Governor and the
Colonial authorities, and they devised a scheme for a railway which was to start from the capital town of British Guiana, Georgetown, a place with 50,000 inhabitants, and was to be taken right through to the Brazilian border, a distance of 300 miles, with the object of developing the timber property, the gold and silver mines, and so on. But the trouble in British Guiana is, and that trouble will remain until some definite steps are taken, that there is a very small population compared with the size of the country. It is a population of about 320,000, composed partly of East Indians, and the remainder of Negroes and Chinamen, with a comparatively few Whites. It is perfectly obvious that with this small population it would not be possible to develop this huge territory unless the Imperial Government came forward with special assistance towards that end. The point arose, supposing that the Imperial Government does give assistance—suppose it conies forward with a loan at easy rates of interest—what control will it have over the expenditure of the Colony? I should mention that the Constitution of the Colony consists of a combined Court. That Court has power over the finances of the Colony, and any matter that arises out of those finances has to be submitted to that Court, which would have almost complete control over it. For a year or two before the War broke out a controversy raged round this question of Constitution because the Imperial Government suggested, and, I think, very rightly, that if they were to come forward and make loans to the British Guiana Government, either for the purpose of developing the railways or for the purpose of improving the harbour in Georgetown, they should have a great deal more control over that expenditure than it was possible to have through the present Constitution or with the advice of the Government of the Colony. I contend that the whole basis of the trouble centres round the small number of the population of the Colony—320,000, the great majority of them taking 2s. or 3s. a day as their taxable limit. It does not matter what you do with regard to the Constitution; you will ultimately, if the people of the Colony have to assist in a large degree in the development of the Colony, have to come back to this point, What is the number of the population of the Colony and what is their taxable capacity? If that is the case, in view of the very strong
objection which I feel would still be taken when this scheme of development arises afresh, would it not be wiser to devise some scheme whereby the Constitution of the Colony were left untouched, in so far as that part of it is concerned in which the greatest development has taken place and concerning which the combined Court has most of its work to do.
A very reasonable solution of this question would be to cut off the strip of British Guiana which is already developed—1,000 or 2,000 square miles—and to leave that as the Colony of British Guiana, ruled, as at present, through a Colonial Government, including the Council and the combined Court, and that the Imperial Government should themselves set up, at the back of this developed strip, a High Commission; that the Imperial Government should have full powers over this High Commission; that all this vast territory of some 90,000 square miles, with all its possibilities, should, just as Mr. Chamberlain did when he put through that railway through British East Africa to Uganda, be taken over by the Imperial Government and developed to the very best measure that is possible. I believe that is a feasible scheme, and 1 believe it is a reasonable solution. I believe, further, that that solution would not find great opposition, if any at all, in the Colony of British Guiana today, because I do not suggest it as an eternal solution, but as a temporary measure which would go on for such number of years as might be necessary to develop that huge territory. It would not be requisite to set up a different administration altogether. That territory might be administered through the Governor of British Guiana, with the help of the Executive Council, which has unofficial members on it, to keep a sort of liaison between the Colony of British Guiana and the new High Commission. I think if that were done it would untie the hands of the Imperial Government, it would free the hands of the Colonial Government from the responsibility which they know is theirs, but which they are unable to face because they have not got the money, they have not got the population, their taxable capacity is limited—it would do all this, and I put it forward not as a new proposal, but as one that has been made before, but which I believe appears to-day in the practical arena.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman referred to the question of the machinery
of reconstruction which he hopes to set up in various Colonies and Protectorates for which we are responsible. I welcome his remarks because, from my knowledge of those places, I agree with him that it is just as necessary to reconstruct in health, education, general development, and so on, in those places as it is in this country. But as I listened to him I could not help feeling that, perhaps due to a sense of modesty, he had not referred to what ought to be the fountain-head of reconstruction of the Colonies and Protectorates. I refer to the Colonial Office. As one who has served for some twenty years under the Colonial Office, I do not wish to be thought to have any desire to attack that Office or to say anything which would hurt their feelings, because I had, and I hope I still have, a number of friends in that Office. My association has been so close with its work that it would be impossible for me to regard it with any other feeling than one of the greatest respect and regard. But at the same time, even friends may be allowed to criticise friends, and I feel that the Colonial Office is out of gear, and is not sufficiently modern for the requirements of the present day. I admit that during the past ten or fifteen years much has been done to modernise and to bring up to date the machinery of the Colonial Office, but I believe, in these days of reconstruction, a great deal remains to be done. I have been very glad to read speeches made by Lord Milner, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in which he has foreshadowed the separation of the Dominions Department of the Colonial Office from the Colonial Office. I believe in that way by cutting off this limb—by cutting off a limb we very often strengthen the rest of the body—it would leave the way clear and open for a greater concentration upon the very great problems of development and otherwise which concern our Crown Colonies and Protectorates. Today the Colonial Office- is understaffed and overworked.

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: Hear, hear.

Mr. MURRAY: I am glad that my hon. Friend agrees with me. I have a deliberate reason for making this statement. I make it from my own knowledge and experience, having worked in the Colonial Office for two years. Any office which is understaffed and overworked cannot conduct its duties properly, because it is not possible for the heads of the Department,
the principal clerks and others to give sufficient time to the greater problems that ought to be and have to be dealt with all the time. Bundles of paper rush through the Office—I am speaking now of my own experience—from morning till night, going up to the principal clerks, who have to give attention to small details instead of the large problems. They go on rushing through and rushing through and there seems no relief. What we require in the Colonial Office is, first of all, more expenditure on staff. 1 say this almost under my breath, because 1 fully realise that economy must be the order of the day. But there is such a thing as false economy. The expenditure of £2,000 or £3,000 a year extra in providing more clerks would relieve the congestion and enable the principal clerks to give more attention to the larger problems. The result of the present system has been that you have the Colonial Office divided into separate Departments, and it is only occasionally, owing to the stress of work, that the heads of the various Departments—when I speak of Departments in this connection I mean one Department representing the African Colonies, another Department representing the West Indian Colonies, another representing Fiji, and so on—are able to meet and discuss the various problems that are pressing in different parts of the Empire, and to attempt to co-ordinate the policy.
I suggest for the consideration of the Under-Secretary that if it were possible it could or might be done by the formation of Committees within the Colonial Office: Committees formed of principal desks who would discuss weekly or fortnightly or at whatever period was most convenient, the different important problems affecting the particular Department with which they are specially concerned. If such Committees were set up much good would accrue to the Colonies. I would further like to see committees formed of business people concerned in operations in the different Colonies to act in an advisory capacity to the Colonial Office. I do not suggest that it would be possible—in fact, I know that it would not be possible—on questions of policy to take the decision of these Advisory Committees. Our policy must be directed and guided by the Secretary of State, responsible to this House, but I do believe that such Advisory Committees would be able to give a great deal of sound and excellent advice in connection with questions especially affecting develop-
ment with regard to agriculture, shipping, harbours, railways, and so on. I put forward this proposal in the hope that it may be given consideration. I cannot pass from this subject without saying that we ought to get that spirit inculcated into the development of our Colonies and Protectorates which has shown itself in the Dominions for many years. the Dominions have always shown that they do not recognise difficulties and that they believe in vigorous and prompt action. That is the spirit which ought to permeate the Colonial Office, and the Colonial authorities. I know it permeates in a larger degree than either many settlers and others who have gone overseas to take up their abode.
Reverting to the question or British Guiana, I am convinced that the most important problem with which we have to deal there is the question of population. No scheme of development with regard to railways, harbours, or anything else can possibly be of avail there unless it runs concurrently or is accompanied by a scheme for the further colonisation of that Colony. The Under-Secretary, in his admirable speech, has recognised that something is necessary in this regard, and I urge that every step should be taken by means of approaching the India Office or any other country which is likely to be able to provide population for this huge undeveloped territory, because unless that is done any 6cheme that can be devised will be quite futile. What objection can there be in India, for instance, to a scheme which cut out the old indenture system as we have known it, though in the West Indies that indenture system has been exceedingly well carried out and has done a great deal of good? A tribute to this effect was paid by a Commission consisting of an eminent Civil servant and an eminent native of India who visited the West-Indies about four or five years ago. That system has been of great assistance in the West Indies? It has been administered to the best advantage and everything was done for the good of the Indians who were brought over. But I understand that this indenture system is doomed. Therefore we have to face the facts as they are. As a substitute, I believe that it would be possible, by means of a colonisation scheme, of bringing whole families across—I will not say how many—to colonise that huge territory without in any way hurting the feelings of India or upsetting the prejudices which they have formed upon this
subject. In conclusion, may I say that we have a much greater responsibility now towards our Colonies and Protectorates than we had before the War by reason of the help which they have given us during the War, the great sacrifices they have made, and the manner in which they have ranged themselves at our side.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: I hope that the Under-Secretary will allow me to thank him heartily for that portion of his admirable speech which he devoted to the need of education. A better system of education is, indeed, a crying need of the tropical Colonies. Some years ago I drew the attention of the Colonial Secretary to the need of a better system of Colonial education. It was too much to expect the Government to pay attention to that in the middle of a great war, but I am glad that, now that Peace has come, the Government are going to take the matter up, because there is urgent need for a university system of education, of scientific investigations and of better instructors, particularly in agricultural education, both British and native. But I wish most earnestly to emphasise that though you may improve your education system and your railway system as much as you like, yet you will never get the highest production and the greatest contentment in the Empire unless you recognise the right of this native to security of tenure in his land. I was particularly pleased to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Captain Ormsby-Gore) said on this question. Security of tenure is the very keystone, not only of loyalty and contentment, but also of commercial prosperity. So long as you treat the native merely as a hewer of wood and a drawer of water, as a person destined to labour merely for the white man, so long as you deny him equal privileges with the white, so long will you have discontent and disloyalty, and so long will you omit the means of obtaining the highest amount of produce from your Colonial territories.
What are the most prosperous portions of tropical and South Africa? Is not your export of cocoa from the Gold Coast enormous? The producers of this enormous output of cocoa are the native producers. Natives are the owners and cultivators of their own land. It is not plantations, but it is the smallholders that are the cheapest producers. Take again Basuto-land, which is the most prosperous and financially the strongest portion of South
Africa. They never have a deficit and they are now in a position to lend money to other places. There is nothing more splendid than the way in which the natives have come to our assistance in this War, and there is nothing more pathetic than the way in which they place their faith in all the splendid announcements of ideals which we have made from time to time during the War. They really have believed that we fought this War for liberty, and for the weak and small nations. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly well aware that what is going on in the mind of the black worker is what has been going on in the mind of the white worker. The white worker is tired of being treated as a mere cog in the wheel. He is asking the fullest development both spiritually and morally. The black worker is doing exactly the same thing.
That brings me to the question of the treatment of the natives of Rhodesia. I have got no particular vendetta against the Chartered Company. I am not sure that I have not got some shares in the company myself, though as they do not pay a dividend it does not matter much whether I have or not, but I do not think that my hon. Friend who spoke will deny the fact that whereas in days gone by the natives had security for their own private tenure they now have no security whatever. On unalienated lands they are merely there on sufferance at the present moment. They may be evicted out of their ancestral lands at any moment. In fact, I am not sure that Commissioners are not going round warning them that they will be turned out. I am also not sure that the Government at the present moment are not preparing an edict to evict them. It is idle to tell me that the natives in those conditions are being governed in the best possible way. Neither can it be asserted that in the reserves they have security of tenure. Only a few years ago the reserves were cut down by 6,000,000 acres. What guarantee have these natives of Rhodesia that the reserves will not be again cut down? My hon. Friend said that was perfectly true when he stated that the natives in Rhodesia were a good deal better off than the native under the Union Government, and than those in British East Africa. That is not saying very much The natives in the Union territory are most shamefully misgoverned. It is true that they are given reserves, but whereas
5,000,000 natives are given only 13 per cent. of the land, 87 per cent. of the land is given to the whites, who number only one and a half millions. I am informed that these natives are working under a system which is more or less veiled slavery. They are subject to the law of passes. If they wish to leave an employer they have to get from him a pass, and, of course, they are entirely subject to his will and caprice and sense of fairness. If an employer wishes to keep his servant on the land, he has only to refuse him a licence. If they migrate to the towns they are met by a threat to take away from them all the right of engaging in trade or holding property. If a white man strikes, he gets an increase in wages, but if a black man strikes with the object of increasing his 6d. or 8d. per day, he is fined or imprisoned.

An HON. MEMBER: British liberty that

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: One cannot say that things are in a satisfactory state as far as the natives are concerned. Of course it is a delicate subject. My hon. Friend may tell me that we have no right to interfere, but you will never persuade the natives of that; you will never persuade them that His Majesty the King and the Imperial Government and Imperial Parliament have not the power to get them justice. They point out that the Indian Government can get at least an improvement in the conditions of the Indian, and they ask why the Imperial Government cannot get an improvement in their conditions. An hon. Gentleman opposite made the very good suggestion that there should be a joint commission to inquire into the condition of the natives. I would urge the necessity of that very strongly. It is a very favourable opportunity for interfering on the part of the natives. I would strongly object to a single inch of territory being handed over to the Union Government unless they set their house in order.
9.0.P.M.
I am not sure whether British East Africa is not governed a great deal too much in the interests of the white and too little in the interests of the native. I should like to know whether it is not a fact that no native has any right to an inch of land in British East Africa except along a strip ten miles from the sea. He is allowed only a small garden—not
enough land to keep himself. The object of that is to make him go out and earn wages, in order to provide the white settler with an adequate supply of cheap labour. I am not surprised to hear that there is extreme discontent in British East Africa among the natives. The resident magistrates, I am told, are expected to act as veiled recruiting officers. They go to the local chiefs and tell them they have to provide so much labour. That is an entirely wrong position for a magistrate to hold. He ought not to be made the servant of the white settler and a sort of recruiting officer for labour.
Those are the points which I wish to place before my hon. Friend. I am glad to think that we have in him a sincere friend of the native fellow members of the British Empire, and I am sure that we may rely on him to do his best to make their conditions as prosperous as possible and to give them the most favourable conditions for loyalty.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: In the first place,. I want to associate myself with previous speakers in congratulating the hon. Member (Lieut.-Colonel Amery) on the interesting and instructive speech he delivered. The speakers have dealt with South Africa, Rhodesia, and some parts of India. I want to call attention to Gibraltar. Probably the hon. Member is aware that among the population of Gibraltar there is great discontent. Some time ago I introduced to the hon. Gentleman a deputation of the workmen. from Gibraltar. I have had some experience in the trade union movement; I have taken deputations with me to meet employers; but I am sure that the hon. Member will agree with me that he never had a deputation more intelligent, or one which it could state its case better, than those workmen did on that occasion-. Their grievance is that they are controlled by the military. They have no local representative Government there, and that is causing a great amount of discontent. We say in this country that taxation and representation go together. If that is so in this country and in the Dominions, I cannot see why it cannot be extended to these people in Gibraltar. They have no system of education. I do not know whether they have a Cowper-Temple Clause, as in this country, or whether they have a religious controversy. I understood that was confined to Wales and Ireland. In Gibraltar I find the children go to school in the
morning, and every half-hour they get a religious service or a religious prayer. If children object to those services they are permitted to go out and play cricket and football in the intervals during the school hours. The population has to contribute to keep up this system. I also find here. according to a circular, that the people there have to pay heavily for drinking-water. These people have no representative on the local authority, and this is carried through by a sanitary committee and by the naval and military people. Surely if the workmen there are of the same type as the workmen who composed the deputation to which I have referred, the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that they are able to control or govern their own destiny. I hope that the Colonial Office will see to it that some kind of representative Government is going to foe extended to this small population.
Another thing that struck me was this. You send engineers from this country to Gibraltar, and the trade union rate of wages is fixed in this country. You also extend to them all the laws of this country so far as Workmen's Compensation and other matters are concerned. If one of those is injured in an accident at work he receives his 25s. exactly the same as in this country. A native of Gibraltar working on the same spot who meets with an accident has to live on charity. Surely you ought to insure those workmen in exactly the same way as you compel employers in this country to insure their workmen. If one of the men from this country is killed his widow receives £300, but the widow of the native workman nothing at all. Surely those people ought to receive better treatment than that. I hope from the very high standard of the hon. Gentleman's speech that he will give those people an opportunity of developing their social, moral, and intellectual faculties and a chance to share the gains and honours of advancing civilisation. The hon Gentleman has struck a very high note, and I hope that the spirit of his remarks will be extended to the people of Gibraltar.
There is one other matter to which I desire to refer. The Labour party of this country has received a communication from the Australian Labour party—it is a delicate question, and I will put it as briefly and as nicely as I can—complaining about the Governor-General, Sir E. M. Ferguson showing partisanship in the administration of affairs in Australia. This resolution was not sent from a trade
union branch meeting or a meeting of a co-operative society, but by the National Labour Party of Australia. A question was put to the Colonial Office by one of my colleagues on Thursday, 3rd July, and the answer we received was:
The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The answer to the last two parts is in the negative.
Surely that is not an answer that will satisfy the National Labour Party when they have a grievance against the Governor-General of Australia. I do hope, seeing that the hon. Gentleman has got some information in reference to this matter, that he will give us some explanation, when replying, as to the complaint that the Australian Labour Party has sent across here, so that we will be able to give them some definite reply. I must say that the Labour party here resent that reply, and the Australian Labour Party feel quite indignant about it. They think that, as a strong party in Australia, they deserve better treatment, especially after the comradeship that has been shown between their people and our people during the War; and we want to cement that good feeling and preserve it in the future. Therefore, I hope the hon. Gentleman will give us some satisfactory reply, so that we can send it back to our colleagues.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: This Colonial Office Vote is of peculiar importance this year. It is the first time that we have had, in my Parliamentary experience, a Conservative Administration in this country in charge of the Colonial Office. During the last fourteen years we have had a Liberal Administration, which has, on the whole, dealt with the Crown Colonies of the British Empire on liberal and enlightened lines, and we are all naturally nervous now lest there should be a change. of policy. I did not gather from the portion of the speech of the Under-Secretary which I heard that he was quite clear on the point which I wish to make. Hitherto we have tried to administer the Crown Colonies, particularly in Africa, for the advantage of the natives of the territory and in their interest. I do not say that we have always followed that policy, but certainly of late years every question that has come up has been judged in the Colonial Office on these lines as to whether the suggestion was really in the interests of the natives or not. Now, especially after this very expensive War, there is a temptation on the part of the Colonial Office and on the part of capitalists of
this country to look upon our Crown Colonies in Africa from a somewhat different point of view, and from the point of view of how much raw material and how much dividends we can get out of them. That point of view is diametrically opposed to the principles on which the Colonial Office has been carried on in recent years. I take, as an example, Nigeria. It is the latest of the Crown Colonies. It has a large Mahomedan population, but it gave this country no trouble during the War, and, on the contrary, provided some excellent troops for work in East Africa, and also supplied us with very valuable war material. In Nigeria and to a certain extent on the Gold Coast the natives, cultivating the land for themselves, have supplied an ever-increasing export trade of cocoa and of oil from the coconut-oil trees. That has all been done as a native industry worked by the natives for the interests of the natives. In Nigeria we have gone so far as to prevent any white man acquiring land in the Colony at all, so that there shall be no interference with the natives' rights to the land. The country has increased in prosperity and in revenue under that administration. Nigeria, which ten years ago used to receive very large Grants every year from this country to make both ends meet, amounting, I believe, to £100,000 a year, is now a self-paying proposition, and the country itself meets all its expenses. The people there all have their own piece of land and cultivate it in perfect peace and comfort, and that system is one which we wish to see, not only in Nigeria, but in each of the other Crown Colonies as well.
If we look at the government of those countries purely from the point of view of the natives, what we want to see is an independent people on their own land, whether held communally or individually, supplying us with the products of their toil. The new doctrine that has already started to creep in is that the native should not produce for himself but for a master. All through the ages there have been attempts to make the black people work for white masters. They tried first of all chattel slavery, and then the conscience of the world revolted against that and chattel slavery was put down, and they tried indentured labour, and only recently, I will not call them atrocities, but the cruelties and injustices associated with indentured labour so changed public
opinion in this country and in India that indentured labour also has become a thing of the past over the greater part of the, British Empire. Then, seeing that indentured labour was no longer available to provide labour for the exploiters, they tried the poll tax, taxing natives so that they had to work in order to find the money to pay the tax. All these methods have been tried, but the best method, as-has been discovered recently, is to take the land away from the natives under the guise of sales by the chiefs of tribes to white exploiters. The chief is easily got round. A bottle of whisky does it in many cases, or the suave tongue of a lawyer and cash down does it in other cases, and the chief parts with the land, which is not properly his land, but the land of the tribe. That is done, and some company for growing coconut palms acquires the estate, and all the natives who used to live on that land have perforce to become labourers for that company. That is what has taken place very largely on the Gold Coast and in Sierra Leone, and indeed in nearly all the Colonies of France, Germany, and elsewhere. It is very simple to expropriate the native, and then the native has to become a labourer at any wage you may choose to offer him.
It is true that we have not always preserved the rights of the natives. The Noble Lord opposite gave the case or British East Africa. I have many good friends in British East Africa, and it did not seem to me that the native of East Africa was at all a cringing native. What struck me most about the country was that the black man expected you to shake hands with him, which is certainly not the case in many British Colonies that I know of, but, although the native has a certain amount of self-respect, and although the white man respects the native, there is an enormous pressure to deprive the natives of their Reserves. If the natives are left with the Reserves they have at present, they have sufficient to cultivate and support themselves, but with the result, particularly after the very heavy death-rate of this War, that there is not enough labour for the white plantations, and the cure is obvious to the eyes of all the white inhabitants of British East Africa. They say, "There is a labour shortage, and we cannot get our plantations cultivated, at least not at the old wage that we used to pay, and, therefore, we must cut down the native Reserves, so
that the natives will have to come and work." It is all perfectly simple if you look at it from the point of view of the exploiter, but the Colonial Office in the past has looked at it from the point of view of the native and has said, "it is not our business to provide labour, but to see that the natives have sufficient Reserves left to support them and their families," and we want to see that, even with a Conservative Administration at the Colonial Office, the interests of natives are still looked after, although pressure is brought to bear by all those who own shares or plantations in East Africa in order to get cheaper labour on the plantations. The same refers, of course, to Rhodesia and South Africa,. Indeed, as the Noble Lord opposite said, in South Africa the position of the black man is worse than it is in any Colony of the British Crown. Indeed, I think the Government should dissociate themselves in some sort of way from any responsibility for the only very thinly veiled slavery that is maintained under the Union Government of South Africa to-day. The land there is being rapidly taken away from the natives. The Commission of white men, with interests all on one side, allocate so much land to the natives and so much land to the whites. The natives, with an overwhelming majority of population— 5,000,000 to 1,500,000—they have allowed 13 per cent. of the land, and the whites they have allowed 87 per cent, of the land, and the 13 per cent. is the bush land, which is very difficult to cultivate and expensive to clear.
But we are not responsible for the government of South Africa. We washed our hands of that when we gave them self-government, and, except for Basutoland and Bechuanaland, the natives have only an appeal to the Union Government, and I do not see that anything we can do, beyond expressing our opinion as Englishmen as to the way in which the natives are enslaved in that country, can be of very great service; but in Rhodesia we have the problem still before us in a peculiarly acute state at the present moment. The Government has appointed a Commission to consider what compensation is due to the Chartered Company for their government of Rhodesia during the past twenty-five or thirty years, and this Commission, we are informed, will name a figure which the Government will feel bound to pay. When they have paid that, Rhodesia will cease to be under the Chartered Company, and will become either a Crown Colony or
annexed to the Union of South Africa. It is of the utmost importance that, before we surrender that country to the Union of South Africa, we should safeguard far more fully than we have in the case of the natives of South Africa the interests of the black people in that country. It is absolutely essential, for the Reserves that have been mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member for Stafford (Captain Ormsby-Gore) as being a native charter are absolutely at the mercy of the Chartered Company whenever the Chartered Company decides to cut down those Reserves. It is absolutely essential that these Reserves should be preserved for the natives themselves. Every pressure will be brought to bear upon the Government to leave the question of these Reserves to the South African Government. Every white settler in that country, human nature being what it is, is almost bound to be in favour of further curtailment of those Reserves. Not only is land put upon the market in that way at a cheap price, which white settlers can then buy, but also the very curtailment of those native Reserves throws the natives on to the labour market and cuts down the rate of wages which the white settlers have to pay. Therefore every influence on the spot will be used to cut down those Reserves, and it is more the duty of the Colonial Office to look at the question from the old traditional point of view of the interests of the natives first, and not in the interests of the prosperity and development of the country. Prosperity and development of the country very often means forced labour, and that men who were content to do little are forced to do much. We do not want to force anybody to work who is able to support himself and his family without doing more than he cares to do. It is all very well to talk about teaching men the dignity of labour, but, when that lesson is taught by the people who are going to benefit from that labour, I think we want to look at it very closely before we allow ourselves to be carried away by that sort of argument. What is the position in relation to the Chartered Company at the present time? The Chartered Company puts in n claim for £7,000,000 of our money. Of course, now a sum of £7,000,000 seems a mere trifle. We spend £100,000,000 in encouraging civil war in Russia, or £00,000,000 or £80,000,000 on building-houses at a loss. We think nothing of a million or two one way or another now. But still, £7,000,000 of our money in order
to buy out the shareholders in the Chartered Company seems to me a proposition which will require some explanation to the electors of this country, not only at by-elections, but at the next General Election. I think it will be found very difficult to explain why the taxpayer is forced to pay these millions in order to buy out the Chartered Company, which, after all, has not been famed in the past for the method and the manner in which it has governed Rhodesia. The hon. and gallant Member opposite went back to the Matabele War. When the Matabele War was started, what the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I think, called the "Victoria incident" occurred in 1893. Dr. Jameson, who organised this expedition against Lobengula, recruited his army in this way, and this is the way in which the liability was built up which we are now asked to liquidate. Each member who joined the force was to be entitled to mark out a farm of 300 morgen (that is about 6,000 acres) in any part of Matabeleland No occupation was to be required, but a quit rent was to be. charged on each farm of 10s. per annum—not 10s. per acre but 10s. for a farm of 6,000 acres. Clause 5 of this excellent Agreement, which was entered into by the Chartered Company with every man who joined that force, conferred the right at any time to purchase farms from the members at the rate of £3 per morgen and compensation for all improvements, and they were given to understand that those farms would be paid for. Any member of the force was to be entitled to fifteen claims on the reef and five alluvial claims, the protection works to be 30 ft. of shaft within six months, and so on. Then Clause 7, which is the most delightful of all, was to the effect that the loot should be divided, one-half going to the B.S.A., and the remainder to the officers and men in equal shares. This was the Army which was going to fight the Matabele, as we were told by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, in order to protect the Mashona. I cannot help thinking that there were more solid considerations behind that expedition. But because there were those solid considerations given in 1893, I do not see why the British elector should now be called upon to liquidate the promise made by Dr. Jameson so long ago as that. I feel that it is putting an unfair charge upon the British taxpayer that he should have to meet claims of that sort, which are all
lumped into this £7,000,000. The hon. and gallant Gentleman, going into most interesting biographical details, told us that he owned no shares in any company. That would account for his not appreciating the very important fact that the British South Africa Company has to keep its administration account and its commercial account separate. Knowing full well that this claim was to be presented, they managed very skilfully to interweave those accounts in such a way that it would require the genius of a Solomon to make out whether a given expenditure was on commercial account or whether it was on administrative account. During the War, for instance, they spent probably £100,000 or more on roads—in connection with the War. Are those commercial or are they administration? They helped from a development point of view as well as from an administrative point of view. How is it possible to distinguish between the items in a commercial account and the items in an administration account? The British North Borneo Company, which is a somewhat similar company, only has, naturally, one account, with administration and commercial items running into one, and then it is possible to audit the accounts and see where you are; but with these two rival accounts running side by side, run by directors whose natural interest it is to confuse the issue in order to enhance the amount claimed from the British public, I think hon. Members will see that there may be, in this £7,000,000 which we are asked to pay, items which upon no possible ground ought to be paid by the British public. To be told, as we arc, that when this Commission of Lord Cave's comes to a decision, however many millions it decides that we are to pay, we shall have to pay that money without the House of Commons being consulted, seems to be not only flouting Parliament but to be absolutely contrary to the intentions and wishes of ninety-nine out of every 100 taxpayers in this country. If this sum, or any sum, has to be paid, let it be paid by South Africa or someone who is nearer to the spot. We are not responsible for the losses made by the Chartered Company, nor to the shareholders who put their money into a gambling counter like that and then expect to avoid all loss by putting the burden on the back of the British Exchequer. The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite said that the native reserves are well protected and that the Chartered Company had the
interests of the natives at heart. He told us about the Commission that went to inquire into those reserves. He knows probably, as well as I do that the Chartered Company were asked by the Colonial Office to nominate one of their native Commissioners who had the natives' interest at heart. They refused, and nominated the man who had been the chief in the agitation for the reduction of the reserves. The other two independent men, one from Uganda and the other, I think, from Basutoland, were old officials of the Chartered Company, and had the same interest. What can you expect from a Commission like that? It took no native evidence whatever, and it naturally decided, as a Noble Lord said, that the reserves should be cut down by 6,000,000 acres. A certain number of natives were deprived of their land without a penny of compensation, and were either forced to go into other already restricted reserves or to emigrate elsewhere, and go, as they probably did, on to the labour market and work for us. I say that a company which operates on those lines, without any cheek from the Colonial Office here, is not a body which can be fairly trusted either with the interests of the natives as a whole or with the good name of the English people, and still less with running up a bill which we have to pay. I do hope that the Colonial Office will remember right through that our good reputation throughout the world depends entirely on the fact that we have tried, although with many failures, to run our Crown Colonies in the interests of the native inhabitants. If we continue on those lines we shall be of some use in the League of Nations and in guiding other people in the same direction.
We shall be able to keep up the high standards that satisfied our ancestors in the past. If, on the other hand, we are going to try to use our ownership of the Crown Colonies all over Africa and elsewhere, Guiana for instance, as a means of increasing the wealth and prosperity of England, as a means of increasing the shares in the various companies which deal in these Colonies and in many of which I am myself interested. [Laughter.] Yes, I take an interest in the countries in which I have investments, but 1 do not want to exploit the blacks in order to increase my dividends—if we are going to measure the success of our Colonial administration by seeing a rise in the price of the shares of the British South Africa Corporation or an enormous
increase in the exports of tin from Nigeria or of copper from Rhodesia, then we may add to the wealth of England, but we shall destroy the good name of our Colonial administration.

Mr. ROYCE: I have had the honour of living in one of these remote countries and of reading with considerable interest the Debates that take place from time to time in this House, and I must say that living under different conditions certainly induces a different state of mind. It may be that the free air of this country breeds a greater desire for freedom, and that we realise it to a greater degree than it can be realised elsewhere. Certain of the ordinary expressions that find favour in this House do not always find the tame degree of favour when read on the other side of the water. My hon. and gallant Friend who has just sat down (Colonel Wedgwood) has had an opportunity of living in these countries and of coining into contact with the natives whom he so much desires to benefit. I wonder whether his opinions and feelings were precisely the same when he lived in those countries as they are at the present moment. I should hardly think so. I am sure that he is in deep earnest in his desire to benefit the native peoples. I have lived with these natives and worked with them for nearly forty years. I know the South African native very well and like him very much. I have the kindest feelings with regard to him.
I should like to say one or two words with regard to South Africa and the Commission that is now going out. I am wondering what will be the ultimate result of the Commission's work. I should like to ask whether it is the intention of the Government in any way to facilitate the transfer of Rhodesia to the Union of South Africa. I was in South Africa when the celebrations took place on the occasion of the inauguration of the Union, and I know quite well the feelings of the South Africans. On that particular occasion they had an allegorical figure pointing to the North. Their progress is in that direction. Both General Smuts and General Botha have already made the necessary arrangements, and you have now an opportunity of making something in the nature of a bargain so far as the protection of the native is concerned. The Union of South Africa has not treated the natives as they ought to be treated. 1 know quite well that there are difficulties
and great difficulties, but since these people persist in increasing in numbers, and they will persist in. increasing in numbers, you have to find some solution of the problem of how to deal with them. They are not always going to be kept as helots or under-dogs. You must make some provision for their expansion; they desire to progress.
I think it is possible that their progression can take place alongside European progression though not in the same manner. It will have to be in an entirely different manner. The Undersecretary of State for the Colonies touched the right spot when he spoke of the progress and emancipation of the natives as taking place on an agricultural basis. It is in agriculture and agriculture alone that there is any hope of the progress and improvement of the native races in South Africa. A good many well-meaning people, including the Noble Lord opposite (Lord H. Cavendish-Bentinck), who wants to inaugurate universities and all that kind of thing, wish to go a little bit faster than the native mind is capable of proceeding. I have known a native whose father was a barbarian who took the highest degrees of his year in a university. T know that the native is capable of great things, but you must think of the question as a whole, and you must elevate the natives in the mass. It does not do to pick out isolated instances and educate him to a degree which renders him altogether unfit to associate with the tribe from which he sprang, because the white people will not have him.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Does my hon. Friend say that we shall be overdoing it if we have one university for the whole of tropical Africa?

Mr. ROYCE: No, I make no such assertion; but you must be careful in your method of progression. A good many institutions have been set up among the native peoples, and they have given them a good education and a trade. What has been the result? Their own people have not made sufficient progress to require the products of trade, whether boots, shoes, clothing, or houses. They build their own houses, and they do not need any boots. Their clothes consist of a blanket. Consequently, they neither warn, bootmakers, tailors, nor house-builders. The man who has been taught a trade of
this description is, therefore, brought in conflict with European labour. European labour will not have him, and, having no-market for his products among his own. people, he drifts back again, a discontented man. 1 believe the regeneration of the people can be effected on an agricultural basis if you will make provision for them on the land, but it means a great deal more than providing them with the-ownership of the land. In many instances-it requires irrigation. In other instances it requires communication, railways, and markets. It is no use growing stuff unless you produce a markes for it, and herein lies the difficulty. My hon. and gallant Friend protests against the exploitation of the natives. You have got to do one of two things—either leave the natives alone or, if you come into contact with them, you have to bring them somewhat into line with European civilisation. There you are met with your difficulties. It is no use standing on a pedestal and saying, "We will not exploit the natives; we will not use their labour."' The very first thing the Colonists want is labour, and you never get enough of it. I have had a good many years' experience and never been in a position to turn away labour. I have always wanted a little more. After all, the labour employed by the Colonist is not quite the slavery that has been described by hon. Gentlemen in this House. I should like to say in this connection that, so far as my experience of labour is concerned, the price I paid for labour was very considerably higher than the price paid for labour in the agricultural districts in England, both in the quantity of money and in other adjuncts is the way of food and shelter. As to the wages ten years ago in Africa paid to the natives engaged on railway work and in mines, I do not know in any case where they were the miserable rates of a few pence per day. The wages there were higher than the wages paid to agricultural labourers in this country, and I believe it is very considerably better to-day than it was ten years ago, so that there was no great exploitation in that respect.
But, coming back to the position of the native, I do agree with the hon. Gentleman opposite that he must have an opportunity of making progress. He cannot be kept down. How is that progress to be effected? You must educate him. He must have a system of education that must
be provided for him, and he must have an opportunity of something in the nature of representation. He had that opportunity under the old Cape Colonial Government, and in the Union of South Africa this House of Commons gave his rights away. You permitted those rights to be taken from him. It is no use grumbling now. You might have preserved his rights if you had fought for them, but you let them go, and now to-day he is in a position of having no representation of any description. I know quite well the white man who lives in South Africa with his wife and family realises that he has to live with these people. It is a trouble to him. Their number is greatly in excess of his own, and he is always possessed of very considerable fear. In that connection may I compliment the Colonial Office on the steps they are taking to prevent the surplus arms from this country reaching savage or partially civilised people? That is a step in the right direction, and another step in the right direction, also communicated by the Under-Secretary, is the partial prohibition of the importation of liquor. If he would make that prohibition absolute, he would do a great deal more than by putting 17s. 6d. on a gallon.

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: Perhaps my hon. Friend did not understand me. We have made it absolute so far as our Colonies are concerned, but the international agreement between ourselves and the French fixes a minimum duty of 17s. 6d. We are prepared to go beyond that and to make prohibition absolute.

Mr. ROYCE: I hope he will make it absolute, because, if it is not made absolute, it is an encouragement to unscrupulous traders to sell liquor diluted with most pernicious mixtures, and the native, once he has a taste for it, will not let it go. But it is more dangerous to put a high duty upon it than to make it free, because the liquor is so much worse. At any rate, I do congratulate the Colonial Office on the steps they are taking in this direction. I was greatly interested in the statement of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite. I congratulate him upon that statement. I congratulate him and the country on the Noble Lord who is at the head of the Colonial Office. I am not concerned whether the Noble Lord is a Unionist, Conservative, or Liberal. I have had opportunities of judging of his capacity and knowledge, and I am quite safe in assert-
ing that, with the direction of the Colonial Office in his hands, and assisted by my hon. and gallant Friend opposite, we need have no fear of any retrograde movement in the administration of that office.

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I certainly cannot complain of the very kind and sympathetic reception of what I had to say, and I only hope I may succeed in giving an adequate and a more or less connected answer to the very many interesting points which have been raised in this discussion. I should like to begin by expressing my appreciation of the remarks which have just fallen from the hon. Member for the Holland Division (Mr. Royce)—remarks informed by practical knowledge and shrewd common sense, and by an understanding of the difficulties of the very complex problem which arises when white and native civilisation come in touch with each other, as they inevitably must in the development of the world. I should like to begin by dealing with the question of Rhodesia, which has been raised by a large number of Members. I think it is necessary to point out, first of all, exactly what the situation is with which the Government and this Committee, is faced. It struck me, in listening to a great many of the speeches made by hon. Members, that they were under the impression that the Chartered Company were asking us to take them over or to pay the bill they have run up, and were coming to us for compensation, and that we, instead of deciding for ourselves, were leaving the matter blindly to a Commission. That is not the position. If the Chartered Company had come a year or two ago to the Colonial Office or to this House to ask to be taken-over, we should undoubtedly have endeavoured to make the very hardest bargain we could in the interest of the taxpayer of the country, and undoubtedly it would have been open to the House to raise any and every question that seemed fit to the House with regard to the reasons why the Chartered Company had not been successful financially, why it had administrative deficits, and why they wanted us to make good those deficits. But, of course, that is not the question.
The question with which we are confronted is this: The issue was brought before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as to whom the land of Rhodesia belonged. The result of their findings was that it belonged, not to the parties who in
the first instance raised the issue, that is the Chartered Company, or the Rhodesian settlers, but that as a matter of fact the land was the property of the Crown, and that the Chartered Company's occupancy was not that of a commercial venture in land, but that of an administrative agent of His Majesty's Government. Therefore, they were entitled as an agent to have the actual deficit and loss made up by the principal whose agent they had been throughout. This was the legal finding of the highest Tribunal of the Empire, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. If it had been a matter purely of legal interpretation, one might have gone to the Law Officers of the Crown. But to find out exactly what that decision involves in pounds, shillings, and pence, you must get the opinion, not only of eminent lawyers who have to keep in mind the legal aspect of the findings of the Commission, but also of eminent experts on the financial, actuarial, and accounting sides of the question. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland said that the most important thing was a careful investigation, and that the investigators should be men whose standing was unimpeachable as accountants. I do not think any standing could be higher in this respect than that of Sir William Peat, the third member of the Commission. It seems to me entirely beside the point, and a misunderstanding of the situation to make the suggestion which both the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland, and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Liberal party, have made, namely, that the House of Commons should be represented on a Commission whose only object is to interpret the conclusions of the Judicial Committee. That confusion was again shown by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland, who suggested that the Commission should go further and inquire into the question of the administration of the Chartered Company. If that were the question at issue I should certainly wish Members of this House to sit upon that Commission and to consider the policy under which that administration has been carried out. That is not the case. The issue is how to translate into actual cash terms the findings of the Privy Council. I believe, from that point of view, the Commission we have chosen is the very best we can possibly secure. The Government are absolutely prepared to trust the judgment of that
Commission as to what has been the proper and necessary expenditure of the Chartered Company in accordance with the findings of the Privy Council.
10.0.P.M.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked me one or two specific questions in regard to the Commission, which I had better answer in the order which they were put. He inquired if it would be left to the Commission to decide whether the expenditure of the Matabele War was necessary and proper expenditure. These expenses were actually in the statement of claim put in by the Chartered Company. Obviously a Commission which has to examine statements of claim by the Chartered Company ought to consider, and will consider, whether the Matabele War expenditure was proper and necessary. As to his second question I hope, not without success, I have endeavoured to make matters clear. The Government is prepared to accept the assessment of the Commission as a correct and final interpretation in terms of money of the Privy Council judgment. But the whole question as to what action is to be taken, whether this House decides upon the policy of indemnification, and what has to be the future of these various matters, will have to have the fullest discussion before this House is asked to vote any sum of money. I think the answer I gave yesterday to the Leader of the Labour Party perfectly reasonable in this connection. The Report of the Commission will, of course, be laid before Parliament to enable the fullest discussion to take place. I am also asked whether the meetings of the Commission will be in public or in private. The procedure is for the Commission to decide, but I understand that certainly the evidence which is given and taken upon the spot in Southern Rhodesia will be evidence taken and given in public. Another question has been put as to the representations to the Commission on behalf of the natives. Telegrams have already been sent to the High Commissioner in South Africa telling him to inform the elected members of the Legislative Council in Rhodesia of the appointment of the Commission, and to give full publicity to the matter, so as to enable all parties interested in any way to see that their representations are heard.

An HON. MEMBER: At whose expense?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman apprehend that the charitable people of this country have to pay the bill for the native case put before the Privy Council?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: Yes, Sir. I am aware, at any rate, that the cost of the Aborigines Protection Society before the Privy Council was contributed by their friends, but I do not see that that necessarily involves the payment either by the Chartered Company or the Imperial Government of witnesses who may individually appear to represent their views to the Commission. Then there was the further question as to whether the Commission will take account of the land which the Company are now developing in their commercial capacity, or of the lands which they have alienated. I certainly assume that all receipts by the Company for lands which they have alienated will be taken into account, as well as the value of the lands which the Company are now developing in their commercial capacity.
I should like to say one or two things as to the general question of the position of the natives in Rhodesia, and as to the attack which has been made upon the administration of the Chartered Company, in that rather lurid and, I think, highly inaccurate appeal which has been circulated to hon. Members. That attack is largely made up of an attempt to revive the controversies of more than twenty-five years ago which turned on the original acquisition of Rhodesia by the Chartered Company. Those matters were discussed very fully at the time, and I do not think any verdict we could arrive at by reopening those discussions would differ very much from the verdict of Lord Ripon, who in 1894 expressed his sincere satisfaction that the result of the inquiry had been to exonerate Dr. Jameson and the officers of the Chartered Company generally from the serious charges made against them. If we are, however, to go back to the history of this question, it is quite right to remind the Committee of what the position was before the Chartered: Company. The appeal is full of references to the "ancestral" lands of which it alleges the natives now no longer own a foot, even for the purposes of a burying ground. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition even spoke of lands which they had occupied for hundreds, if not thousands of years! What are the facts? The Matabele
invaded the country that is now Southern Rhodesia even in oar own lifetime. I have-talked myself to village headmen about. their own recollection of that invasion. They were defeated by the Boers, who found them ravaging and plundering the country which afterwards became the Transvaal, and drove them across the Limpopo. Here they camped and made their headquarters among the weaker Mashona tribes, and harried and raided and subjected them to tribute as it seemed good to them. It may have been a happy position for the Matabele warriors. But certainly the position of the great majority of the inhabitants of that country was anything but a happy one. They had no security of tenure either in their lands, their cattle, their wives, or their lives. It is quite true that the expedition which in the end broke the Matabele power, was induced to do so, among other reasons, by the offer of farms, of mining rights, of a share in the looted cattle. Those were the inducements which were required to get the force together. 1 admit that it would have been very much better if the Imperial Government itself had been willing to extend its responsibility by putting an end to the misrule of the Matabele, I think Mr. Rhodes took the best instrument near to his hand by the formation of the Chartered Company to bring about results which he desired, not for the sake of gain, but for the sake of Imperial security.
But I would remind the House that no sooner had those events taken place and the whole thing been inquired into than the Imperial Government did take very effective steps to look after the interests of the natives. I remember that Sir Marshal Clarke was appointed especially to watch over the interests of the natives, and from that date the general control of the work of the native Commissioners has been under the closest supervision of the Imperial Government, through the Imperial High Commissioner in South Africa. My hon. and gallant Friend is mistaken when he says that there is no check upon the treatment of the natives.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I said there was no check upon the exploitation of the natives.

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: There has been supervision, and the Chartered Company has in all these matters been acting as the agent, and the closely supervised agent, of the Imperial Government. Take
the question of the land. The Commission which inquired into that subject was appointed by the High Commissioner, and two out of the three were members of the Imperial Civil Service serving in the Chartered Company, and they were responsible to the Imperial Government.

Captain ORMSBY-GORE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the two principal members from Basutoland and Uganda were Imperial servants under the High Commissioner or actually servants of the Chartered Company?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: One of them, the present Governor of Uganda, was at one time administrator of North-Eastern Rhodesia. The other, Major Garraway, may have been with the Chartered Company at some time or other for all I know. But if so, it was an incident in a long career of Imperial service, in Bechuanaland, on the High Commissioner's staff at Pretoria, and as administrator of Basutoland. I know that administration has won the highest praise of those who are anxious to safeguard the welfare of the natives. In any case it would be an entire mistake to say that the natives in Rhodesia have been expropriated and own not a foot of land. Outside the reserves they have the right to acquire land and have, I believe, done so in some instances. As regards the reserves they are in the same position as the natives in Nigeria or other parts where we have not countenanced the establishment of individual ownership of land and have recognised communal tenure of land. These reserves, which are very large in extent, were subject to alteration only in the sense that if a Commission appointed by the Imperial Commissioner after full consideration of all the interests involved thought there should be some modification, that might be sanctioned by the Government. As a matter of fact it is not the intention of His Majesty's Government that these reserves, now comprising nearly 20,000,000 acres—a reduction not of 6,000,000 but of 1,000,000 acres on their former area—shall be varied or diminished in the future, at any rate if the needs of the native population remain what they are to-day.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will you make it part of the bargain with the South African Government?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: In the possible transfer of Rhodesia to the Union the interests of the natives would certainly have to be safeguarded and considered by the Government. In this connection I will say that the whole question of what form the government of Rhodesia shall take in the future when and if the Chartered Company terminates is a matter in which we must be guided by the opinion of the people themselves. The Imperial Government have to take, as far as the natives are concerned, the initiative in safeguarding and protecting their interests. But as far as the interests of the white people are concerned, as to the conditions under which they may wish to join the Union, or live under some other form of government, the Colonial Office will naturally have regard to their views.
There has been a good deal of criticism of the position of the natives under the South African Union. It is very difficult for me to say anything on that subject, as also it must be difficult for the House. But there has been something said by more than one hon. Member that I am bound to correct. It has been assorted that the rights enjoyed by the natives in the old British Colonies before the Union have been abolished, superseded and done away with. That is not the case. The only right enjoyed by the natives in the Cape Colony before the Union that can be regarded as modified is this that before the Union they had a right not only to vote for the Cape Parliament but, if elected, to sit in it. They now have the right to vote for the Union Parliament, but not to sit in it, but they retain the right to sit in the Cape Provincial Assembly.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does the hon. Gentleman deny that they have lost the right to own land?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I am not aware of it, but I will certainly look into the point.

Mr. SPOOR: Have the natives not represented their grievances to the Colonial Office?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: Yes, I myself received a deputation and heard their full case. I am bound to tell this House what I told that deputation, that having set up the principle of responsible self-government in South Africa we are bound by it. My hon. Friend said, in a tone of regret, that the Boer point of view has tended to
predominate in the administration of native affairs in South Africa. All I can say is that I put against that the statement of the Leader of the Opposition who singled out the giving of wholly responsible self-government to South Africa as the most successful vindication of British principles of liberty. You have to take the thing as a whole. We have set up in South Africa responsible self-government. Some of us may hold different views as to the many difficult problems arising out of the presence, side by side of a white community and a large native community with very limited political rights, and in some parts with no rights at all. But I might mention that the grievances which the natives voiced to me with the greatest indignation were grievances arising not out of the action of the Union Government but out of the action of organised white labour in South Africa which refuses to allow the natives to take part in skilled work. I do not see how we can, consistently with the broad principles which govern the British Empire, interfere in an issue of that sort. There must be a certain measure of faith in these matters. We may feel that were we in the place of those entrusted with the direction of these matters, we could solve these problems better than they do, and more quickly. That is as may be. We must trust in the same principles of liberty which in this country have seen one class after another which had no power, no vote, no social advantages, gradually rising up to a better and- a stronger position. We must hope that in South Africa, too, in the same way those principles will in the end lead to a solution of the very difficult problem of the relations between the races.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Did not the Government of India intervene on behalf of the British Indians in Africa with marked success?

Lieut-Colonel AMERY: It depends much what is meant by the word intervention.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: They interceded.

Lieut-Colonel AMERY: They interceded, but the most successful intervention was that of an individual Indian, Mr. Gandhi, who by his own personality, his persistence and his courage got much farther in the solution of the problem of the Indians in the Transvaal than any official
representations could have done. To come to the general question of the natives in our Colonies, the essence of our principle of government in the vast areas under our charge is to govern in the interest of the native inhabitants and for their welfare, and in particular with regard to the question of labour, the solution which we look to is that of interesting the native in the possibility of working his own land for his own benefit as an independent cultivator. I am entirely with my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Wedgwood) on that. But there is the suspicion in his mind that we wish to develop these countries for the benefit of the inhabitants of the United Kingdom. Our object in bringing about development is to raise the condition of the inhabitants and provide opportunities for a better and a higher scale of living. We want reconstruction in regard to health, in regard to liquor, in regard to education, in regard to all the things which will make those countries hotter worth living in for their inhabitants. But in doing so there is undoubtedly an overflow of benefit and wealth and opportunity for the people of this country. I do not see how you can create wealth and prosperity in one part of the Empire without creating it in another, and I am not prepared to accept in the least the doctrine that there is a diametric opposition in governing in the interest of the natives, and attempting to develop the country from the Imperial point of view. It you build 100 miles of railway in Nigeria that is directly in the interest of the natives. I defy you to build that railway and to benefit the natives without bringing further opportunities of trade for the people of this country, a free flow of materials to this country, and in all probability a free flow of goods from this country for the natives to purchase.
I cannot pass over the very interesting speech of the hon. Member (Mr. Murray). The causes of the neglect of the West Indies are not' difficult to understand. The area of the Colonies is small in most cases. They are scattered. Under our principle of leaving each particular Colony to look after itself it is not easy to get development. The hon. Member quoted British Guiana, and compared it with Uruguay. I quite agree that British Guiana is just as rich as Uruguay, but I would draw the hon. Member's attention to certain differences which are reasons against easy
development, and which offer an explanation why British Guiana has not been developed before, in Uruguay you have open country, but in British Guiana, immediately behind the coast, you have dense forests, primeval forests.

Mr. G. MURRAY: Uruguay is not as accessible as British Guiana. I was thinking of Paraguay.

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I was thinking of Uruguay, not Paraguay, but in either case you are dealing with open country, easily opened up for cultivation or stock-raising. In British Guiana you get a long way inland before you get to the open Savannah country, and you have to face immense cost in cutting down timber. In Uruguay you are on the estuary of the greatest river for navigation. Even in Paraguay you are within easy access of some of the biggest steamers. In British Guiana it is true that we have very fine rivers, but they tumble over cataracts fairly close to the coast, and navigation has not been established. In order to develop British Guiana properly you need large capital and initiative, which has hitherto not been within the scope of a small Colony of 300.000 inhabitants. My hon. Friend (Mr. G. Murray) made a vary interesting suggestion when he advised the Colonial Office to separate the undeveloped interior of British Guiana from the little coastal strip, which should continue to be governed as at present, and that in the undeveloped interior the Imperial Government should set up a High Commission, with Imperial funds or private funds, for the purpose of developing that part of the country, leaving the Colony to carry on its own local work as in the past. It is a suggestion well worthy of consideration. I agree entirely that in the West Indies we want a progressive policy of development, of railway building, etc. All these things require a great deal of capital, and I do not think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's coadjutor (Mr. Baldwin) would by any means smile upon any suggestion from me that we should have a few extra millions for British Guiana. But we shall have to find eventually from public or private sources capital to develop any part of the Empire which is not developed as it should be, and the country would be well repaid. After all, the development of the Empire
in the long run, as is true of the Government of the Empire, cannot rest only on the shoulders of the people of this country. It must be a common task for all the self-governing Dominions. I hope the time is rapidly approaching, and it is approaching, when Canada will take a continually increasing interest in the economic development and welfare of the West Indies. She has already done a good deal through the mutual preferential tariff, which has been in existence for some years, through the development of shipping lines, and through the interest which Canadian capital has begun to take in the West Indies. I only hope that that interest will go on increasing and that Canada will take an ever-increasing share in developing and helping forward not only the West Indies but every part of the dependent Empire, which at present is so largely dependent on this country alone not only for its Government but also for its economic development.
Before I close I would like to answer some other points that have been raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Mon-mouth (Mr. Griffiths) raised very interesting and very difficult questions as to the position of the inhabitants of Gibraltar. I met the deputation of Gibraltar workmen which he introduced. They stated their case very ably. I would not for a moment suggest that they were not representative of a population which is in the matter of quality a people capable of self-government. But we are confronted with the difficulty of a population of less than 20,000, who live not merely adjacent to but actually inside a fortress, which is closed at sunset every day and into which there is no ingress and from which there is no egress during the night. It has practically no water of its own. Therefore it requires most careful measures to secure any drinking water in the ease of a siege. One of the complaints of the deputation was that drinking water costs them 2½d. a gallon. The only water that can be got from pumps or wells in Gibraltar itself is brackish. That is the water which they get free or for a minimum charge for washing purposes. The only drinking water is got by means of an elaborate system of corrugated iron roofs from which it is collected. It is the absolute standby for the garrison, and it is as essential that the garrison should have control of the water as to have control of its ammunition. That is one of the difficulties
of entrusting the water supply of the place to a locally elected body. I agree with my hon. Friend that certainly, when it comes to measures of social reform, in dealing with such things as workmen's compensation and education, where you have got a little European community which for overwhelming military reasons you cannot treat as a self-governing community, you are, at any rate, under a very serious obligation to try and bring it up as nearly as you can to your own level in this country: and since that deputation has been received the Secretary of State has communicated with the Governor with a view to seeing what can be done to introduce a more efficient system of education and also to deal with the question of workmen's compensation and other similar questions.
Another point which the hon. Member raised was the question of the protest of the Australian Labour party with regard to the action of the Governor-General, and he suggested that the Australian Labour party was very much disappointed by the answer which I gave in this House, indicating that the Secretary of State would not be able to take action in the matter. If there is one principle of self-government which is universally admitted to be necessary for the effective co-operation of all parts of the British Empire, it is that one Government of the Empire, in dealing with another part of the Empire, does accept the Government of the day as expressing the view of the nation and cannot go behind the back of the Government of the day to deal with the Opposition. 1 mean it is impossible for His Majesty's Government to carry on negotiations, as regards, for instance, native questions in South Africa or in any of the Dominions, with anybody but the Government of the day, and it seems to me that that principle must remain. We can deal only with constituted Governments. If another Government should be returned, and that Government, as a Government, likes to make representations to us on any subject, then, naturally, we shall be bound to listen to those representations and to consider them.
I am afraid that, one way or another, I have taken up a good deal of the time of the Committee this evening. I know I cannot satisfy entirely all the different critics of the administration of the Colonial Office. I remember, in passing, that I never answered the criticism of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Rollox (Mr.
G. Murray) on the deficiencies of the Colonial Office itself. I hope I may be allowed, at any rate for to-night, to pass over those deficiencies, if they exist. I admit frankly the shortage of staff and the overwork of the officials in that Office. Perhaps I may be allowed to pass them over for the occasion, and perhaps also to deal with that particular criticism again, if the prayers of the Leader of the Opposition be not fulfilled, and I am still in the same place a year hence.

Mr. ACLAND: In thanking the hon. Gentleman for his most interesting speech, which we all appreciated, there are two things I want to mention. One is, did I understand, in reference to the Cave Commission, that they would be willing to take evidence in this country?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: They began taking evidence yesterday.

Mr. ACLAND: They will be willing to take evidence if there is any offered to them. I think the hon. Member made a rather important statement with regard to the natives in Rhodesia. I understood that he said quite definitely that in any transactions which may in future take place with regard to Rhodesia the position of the natives with regard to their land would be safeguarded and secured. That is a quite important statement, and very satisfactory to those Members of the House who are interested in that question. I take note of that statement, and, of course, we shall be certain that it will be faithfully carried out when the time comes.

Lieut. Commander KENWORTHY: I would like to add my small meed of praise for the very interesting speech which the hon. Gentleman made. I want to say a word or two about the inhabitants, of Gibraltar. I was one of the garrison there, and I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman's plea that, because Gibraltar is a fortress, therefore the inhabitants cannot be given any measure of local self-government for absolutely local needs. Without in any way interfering with the safety of the fortress, the British workmen in Gibraltar and the native-born Spanish working classes could be given some say in the purely local matters of the fortress. At present they complain that they are badly exploited by the commercial classes which have control of the markets and the commercial arrangements of the port, and that they have no say or means of repre-
seating their grievances to the Governor. They say that the Governor pays more attention and lends a more sympathetic ear to the rich commercial men than to the poor working man of British or native descent. I do ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to reconsider this matter, because I am convinced that a measure of local self-government would be healthy, would make them contented, and would raise our prestige in Gibraltar, especially in the eyes of the inhabitants of Spain, and we must remember that the Andalusians are rather advanced in politics. I would also refer to the position of Malta. When we had driven out the Andalusian garrison we promised the Maltese that their customs and institutions would be preserved. We all know that there has been trouble and discontent there, but I hope that the Constitution will be re-established as soon as possible, and I am sure that Malta will be as loyal as it has been for a hundred years.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again. To-morrow.

GOVERNMENT WAR OBLIGATIONS BILL.

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.

SUPPLY [29th July].

Resolution reported,
That a further sum, not exceeding £107.000 000, be granted to His Majesty on Account for defraying the Charges for Army Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920.

SUPPLY [14th July].

Resolution reported,
That a sum, not exceeding £2,113,254. be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade and Subordinate Departments, including certain Special Services arising out of the War.

SUPPLY.

STANDING COMMITTEE (1st JULY.

Resolutions reported,
"1. That a sum, not exceeding £190,000. be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will coma in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of "March. 1920. for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Oversea. Trade.
(2)That a sum, not exceeding £15,213, be granted to His Majesty to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses in the Office of His Majesty's Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues.
(3)That a sum, not exceeding £170,890, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Commissioners of His Majesty's Works and Public Buildings."

SUPPLY.

STANDING COMMITTEE C [10th July].

Resolutions reported.
"1. That a sum, not excelling ££0,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, to meet Expenditure arising from the Government Control of Railways in Great Britain and Ireland under the Regulations of the Forces Act, 1871.
(2)That a sum, not exceeding £1,183,337, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1920, for the Salaries of the Commissioner and Assistant Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police, and of the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District, the Contribution towards the Expenses of the Metropolitan Police, the Salaries and Expenses of the Inspectors of Constabulary, and other Grants in respect of Police Expenditure.
(3)That a sum, not exceeding £473,000, be granted to Hit Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920 for the Expenses of the Prisons in England, Wales, and the Colonies, including a Grant in Aid of certain Expenses connected with Discharged Prisoners.
(4)That a sum, not exceeding £285,332, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Inspector of Reformatories, and for the Expense of the Maintenance of Juvenile Offenders in Reformatory, Industrial, and Day Industrial Schools and in Places of Detention under the Children Act, in Great Britain.
2245
5. That a sum, not exceeding £46,875, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Expense of the Maintenance of Criminal Lunatics in the Criminal Lunatic Asylums at Broadmoor and Rampton."

SUPPLY [17th JULY].

Resolution reported,
That a sum, not exceeding £25,273,922, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Post Office. including Telegraphs and Telephones.

SUPPLY.

STANDING COMMITTEE C [9th JULY].

Resolutions reported,
"1. That a sum, not exceeding £112,751, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920. for the Salaries and Expenses of certain services transferred from the Mercantile Marine Fund, and other services connected with the Mercantile Marine, including Merchant Seamen's Fund Pensions.
2. That a sum, not exceeding £6, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for meeting the Deficiency of income from Fees, etc., for the requirements of the Board of Trade, under the Bankruptcy Act, 1914."

SUPPLY.

STANDING COMMITTEE C [23rd JULY].

Resolutions reported,
1. That a sum, not exceeding £1,164,797, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Expenses in connection with His Majesty s Embassies, Missions, and Consular Establishments Abroad, and other Expenditure chargeable to the Consular Vote.

Class II.

2. That a sum, not exceeding £1,312, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests for Ireland.
3. That a sum, not exceeding £34,757, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Public Works in Ireland."

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURMENT.—Resolved,
That the House do now adjourn."—[Colonel Sanders.]

Adjourned accordingly at Ten minutes before Eleven o'clock